UPENDRA CHOUDHURY versus BULANDSHAHAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.

Citation: [2021] 1 S.C.R. 525 · Decided: 11-02-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
525
UPENDRA CHOUDHURY
v.
BULANDSHAHAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 150 of 2021)
FEBRUARY 11, 2021
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
M.R. SHAH, JJ.]
Constitution of India – Art.32 – Directions sought in respect
of a real estate project u/Art.32 – Held: The reliefs sought by the
petitioner would involve the Court in an adjudicative process in
determining whether (i) all the agreements should be cancelled; (ii)
whether money which is paid by the home buyers should be
refunded; or in the alternative (iii) whether judicial directions are
necessary to ensure that the project is constructed and the premises
are handed over within a reasonable time – The writ petition u/Art.
32 has been filed by a singular home buyer without seeking to
represent the entire class of home buyers – The petition proceeds
on the implicit assumption that the interest of all the buyers are
identical – There is no basis to make such an assumption – All buyers
may not seek a cancellation and refund of consideration – Apart
from this aspect, the petitioner seeks other reliefs in aid of the
primary relief, including the constitution of a Committee presided
over by a former Judge of the Supreme Court for the purpose of
handling the projects of the developer where moneys have been
taken from home buyers – There are specific statutory provisions
holding the field, including among them: (i) The Consumer Protection
Act 1986 and its successor legislation; (ii) The Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Act 2016; and (iii) The Insolvency
and Bankruptcy Code 2016 – Insofar as the remedies of a criminal
investigation are concerned, adequate remedies are available in
terms of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – The Court has no
reason to doubt the genuineness of the grievance which has been
espoused by the petitioner – However, the issue is whether his
recourse to Art. 32 is the correct remedy when alternative modalities
are available and particularly since the engagement of the Court in
a petition of this nature would involve a supervision which does not
lie within the province of judicial review – In view of the statutory
   [2021] 1 S.C.R. 525
525
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
526
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 1 S.C.R.
framework, both in terms of civil and criminal law and procedure,
entertaining a petition u/Art. 32 would be inappropriate – Hence,
petition u/Art.32 declined.
Disposing of the petition, the Court
HELD: 1. It would be inappropriate to entertain a petition
under Article 32 for more than one reason. There are specific
statutory provisions holding the field, including among them: (i)
The Consumer Protection Act 1986 and its successor legislation;
(ii) The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act
2016; and (iii) The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016.
[Para 6][531-F-G]
2. Each of these statutory enactments has been made by
Parliament with a specific purpose in view. The 1986 Act as well
as the subsequent legislation contain provisions for
representative consumer complaints. One or more home buyers
can consequently seek relief to represent a common grievance
for a whole class of purchasers of real estate. The RERA similarly
contains specific provisions and remedies for dealing with the
grievance of purchasers of real estate. The provisions of the IBC
have specifically taken note of the difficulties which are faced by
home buyers by providing for remedies within the fold of the
statute. [Para 7][532-A-C]
3. Entertaining a petition of this nature will involve the
Court in virtually carrying out a day to day supervision of a building
project. Appointing a Committee presided over by a former Judge
of this Court would not resolve the problem because the Court
will have nonetheless to supervise the Committee for the reliefs
sought in the petition under Article 32. Insofar as the remedies
of a criminal investigation are concerned, there is reason for this
Court not to entertain a petition directly under Article 32 in the
present set of facts. Adequate remedies are available in terms of
the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. The statutory procedures
which are enunciated have to be invoked. Adequate provisions
have been made in the statute to deal with the filing of a complaint
and for investigation in accordance with law. Judicial intervention
is provided at appropriate stages by competent courts in that
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
527
regard. In Devendra Dwivedi v. Union of India and Ors., a three-
Judge Bench of this Court held that

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.