UPENDRA CHOUDHURY versus BULANDSHAHAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.

UPENDRA CHOUDHURY versus BULANDSHAHAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.

The petition under Article 32 was declined and disposed of because specific statutory remedies exist for home buyers under the Consumer Protection Act, RERA and the IBC, criminal remedies are available under the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner did not establish that he represented the class of buyers, and judicial intervention to supervise construction projects would amount to impermissible day-to-day administration beyond the scope of judicial review.

Parties
Petitioner: Upendra Choudhury; Respondent: Bulandshahar Development Authority & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
11 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition (civil) No. 150 of 2021 Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India / Disposed
Outcome
Petition disposed of (Article 32 relief declined)
Legal Topics
Article 32 Remedies, RERA, Consumer Protection Act 1986, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016, Judicial Discretion on Maintainability, Representative Consumer Complaints, Scope of Judicial Supervision Over Administration
Constitutional Law Real Estate Law Consumer Protection Insolvency Law Criminal Procedure Administrative Law Judicial Review Article 32 Remedies +6 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Upendra Choudhury

Petitioner

Bulandshahar Development Authority & Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition (civil) No. 150 of 2021 Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India / Disposed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a petition under Article 32 is maintainable to seek cancellation of agreements and refund or supervisory orders for completion of a real estate project
  2. 2 Whether alternative statutory remedies under the Consumer Protection Act, RERA and the IBC preclude exercise of Article 32 jurisdiction
  3. 3 Whether the Court can appoint and supervise a committee or receiver to manage completion of construction projects

Ratio Decidendi

The petition under Article 32 was declined and disposed of because specific statutory remedies exist for home buyers under the Consumer Protection Act, RERA and the IBC, criminal remedies are available under the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner did not establish that he represented the class of buyers, and judicial intervention to supervise construction projects would amount to impermissible day-to-day administration beyond the scope of judicial review.

Court Disposition

Petition disposed of (Article 32 relief declined)

Orders

  • Writ petition under Article 32 is declined and stands disposed of
  • Liberty granted to the petitioner to pursue remedies under the relevant statutory provisions (Consumer Protection Act, RERA, IBC and criminal procedure)