2025:UHC:8408 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 2752 of 2025 19 September, 2025 Ms Paratus Real Estate Private Limited --Petitioner Versus Amit Kumar Garg and Others --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Dr. Kartikey Hari Gupta, Ms. Irum Zeba and Mr. Rafat Munir Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner- promoter. Ms. Monika Pant, learned counsel for respondent No.4, appeared through video conferencing. Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral) This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner- promoter for following reliefs:- i. A Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Certiorari calling for record and quash/set-aside the Pre-Deposit Order dated 04.09.2025, passed by the Uttarakhand Real Estate Appellate Tribunal Dehradun, directing the petitioner to deposit 50% of the amount, indicated by the Authority in the Impugned Order dated 28.03.2025 u/s 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 (Annexure No.1). ii. A Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent No.4/Uttarakhand Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Dehradun to entertain the petitioner’s Appeal registered as Miscellaneous Case No.38/2025 ‘M/S Paratus Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. V. Shri Amit Kumar Garg & Others’ (Annexure No.8) with Pre-Deposit of 30% of the amount indicated by the Authority in the Impugned Order dated 28.03.2025 u/s 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016. iii. A Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus permitting the petitioner to deposit the 30% of the amount indicated by the Authority in the Impugned Order dated 28.03.2025 u/s 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016; before the Hon’ble High Court as Pre-Deposit for entertaining petitioner’s Appeal registered as Miscellaneous Case No.38/2025 ‘M/S Paratus Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. V. Shri Amit Kumar Garg & Others’ (Annexure No.8). 1 2025:UHC:8408 2. The Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA), Dehradun has passed an order dated 28.03.2025, whereby, the petitioner-promoter was directed to refund the entire amount of Rs.17,40,000/- and Rs.5,29,159/- to Shri Amit Kumar Garg-complainant-allottee, within 45 days from the date of that order i.e.28.03.2025 with interest @11.10% to be calculated from the respective dates of payment, failure thereof within 45 days, would attract additional interest on the payable amount of Rs.17,40,000/- and Rs.5,29,159/-, till the preceding date of actual refund. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner-promoter has preferred an Appeal before the learned Appellate Tribunal under Section 43 of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Act’). 3. The proviso to the Section 43 Sub-section 5 reads as under:- “where a promoter files an appeal with the Appellate Tribunal, it shall not be entertained, without the promoter first having deposited with the Appellate Tribunal at least thirty per cent of the penalty, or such higher percentage as may be determined by the Appellate Tribunal, or the total amount to be paid to the allottee including interest and compensation imposed on him, if any, or with both, as the case may be, before the said appeal is heard.” 4. From bare reading of the aforesaid proviso, it is clear that the Appeal at the hand of the promoter shall be entertained only after the promoter deposits at least 30% of the penalty or such higher percentage as determined by the learned Appellate Tribunal. The learned Appellate Tribunal has directed the petitioner- promoter to deposit the 50% of the penalty. It is feeling aggrieved by the said condition precedent for entertaining the appeal, the petitioner-promoter is before this Court. 2 2025:UHC:8408 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner-promoter that it is clear from the order impugned before the learned Appellate Tribunal that the respondent-allottee had himself failed to make the payment of EMI, and therefore, in this circumstance, the petitioner-promoter should have been allowed to deposit only 30% of the amount under order and not 50%. 6. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner-promoter, this Court is of the view that this Act has been enacted in order to safeguard the interest of the consumers especially in the field of Real Estate, and therefore, provision should be construed very strictly. The preamble of the said Act is extracted hereunder: “An Act to establish the Real Estate Regulatory Authority for regulation and promotion of the real estate sector and to ensure sale of plot, apartment or building, as the case may be, or sale of real estate project, in an efficient and transparent manner and to protect the interest of consumers in the real estate sector and to establish an adjudicating mechanism for speedy dispute redressal and also to establish the Appellate Tribunal to hear appeal from the decisions, directions or orders of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority and the adjudicating officer and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.” 7. In view of the above, this Court thinks that there is no illegality in the order passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal, whereby, the petitioner-promoter was directed to deposit 50% of the amount under order. 8. Accordingly, this Court finds no force in the present writ petition and the same is dismissed in-limine. 9. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 19.09.2025 PN 3 PREETI NEGI Digitally signed by PREETI NEGI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=63c75a8c4765581180a58d7478fadbe38331bac55c78b5f9f02 76c16432f6aab, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=2BA53171893B3C3CB3CCCAE81FAE064498483A83D84 BDB0F9229D5BF08D959AC, cn=PREETI NEGI Date: 2025.09.19 16:11:43 +05'30'