Supreme Court Closes Proceedings Challenging Removal Inquiry Against MP RERA Chairperson

Supreme Court Closes Proceedings Challenging Removal Inquiry Against MP RERA Chairperson

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India has closed the proceedings challenging the removal inquiry initiated by the Madhya Pradesh High Court against the Chairperson of Madhya Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA). The Court took note of the High Court's decision to withdraw the inquiry and refused to grant liberty to reopen or reinitiate the inquiry process.

Factual Background

A complaint was filed by a homebuyer against an order of the Chairperson refusing criminal prosecution against a builder. The State government wrote to the High Court seeking an inquiry for his removal under Section 26 of the RERA Act, 2016. The Chairperson challenged the process before the Supreme Court, arguing that the State had not followed the mandatory procedure.

Procedural Background

The bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta had stayed the inquiry in March, holding that the process appeared prima facie contrary to statutory requirements. The Court then called for responses from the Chief Minister's office, the Registrar General of the High Court, and the Chief Secretary of the State.

Issues

The main issue before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's decision to withdraw the inquiry was valid and whether the Court should continue with the writ petitions filed by the RERA Chairperson and the Authority itself.

Contentions of the Parties

Petitioners: The petitioners argued that the State had not followed the mandatory procedure under Section 26(2) of the RERA Act, 2016, and Rule 35 of the Madhya Pradesh RERA Rules, 2017. They submitted that the government failed to conduct preliminary scrutiny, hear the Chairperson's version, or prepare charges before forwarding the matter to the High Court.

Respondents: The respondents informed the Court that the Chief Justice-led committee had reviewed the process and found it legally flawed. Therefore, the committee had recalled the show cause notice issued to the Chairperson and dropped the inquiry altogether.

Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had decided to drop the inquiry and recalled the show cause notice issued to the Chairperson. The Court refused to grant liberty to the High Court to reopen or reinitiate the inquiry process, effectively ending the proceedings against the regulator's Chairperson.

Implications

The judgment highlights the importance of following due process in inquiries against regulatory authorities. The Supreme Court's decision underscores the need for fairness and transparency in such proceedings.

Relief Sought

The petitioners sought to challenge the removal inquiry initiated by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The Supreme Court closed the proceedings, and the Chairperson will continue in office.

In this case the petitioner was represented by Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv., Mr. Samdarshi Tiwari, Sr. Adv., Mr. Siddharth R Gupta, Mr. Mrigank Prabhakar, AOR, Mr. Sudipto Sircar, Mr. Ashish J. Matthews, Mr. Aman Agarwal, Mr. Uddaish Palya, Mr. Aniket Mishra and Mr. Siddharth Sahu, Advocates.

Meanwhile the respondent was represented by Additional Advocate General Nachiketa Joshi along with Advocates Pashupathi Nath Razdan, Arjun Garg, Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Shantanu Krishna, Astik Gupta, Akanksha Tomar, Yaduven, Sagun Srivastava and Saaransh Shukla.