Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:19490-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1369 of 2025 Petitioner :- Kvir Towers Private Ltd. Thru. Director/Authorized Signatory Himanshu Garg Respondent :- U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority Thru. Secy. Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Nandwani,Apoorva Tewari Counsel for Respondent :- Shobhit Mohan Shukla with Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1370 of 2025 Petitioner :- Kvir Towers Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Director And Auth. Sign. Himanshu Garg Respondent :- U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority Thru. Secy. Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Nandwani,Apoorva Tewari Counsel for Respondent :- Shobhit Mohan Shukla with Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1371 of 2025 Petitioner :- Kvir Towers Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Its Director And Authorized Signatory Himanshu Garg Respondent :- U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Auth. Its Office At Rajya Niyojan Sansthan Lko. Thru. Its Secy. Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Nandwani,Apoorva Tewari Counsel for Respondent :- Shobhit Mohan Shukla with Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1386 of 2025 Petitioner :- Kvir Towers Private Ltd. Thru. Director And Authorized Signatory Himanshu Garg Respondent :- U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority Lko. Thru. Secy. Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Nandwani,Apoorva Tewari Counsel for Respondent :- Shobhit Mohan Shukla with Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1388 of 2025 Petitioner :- Kvir Towers Pvt. Ltd Thru. Director And Authorized Signatory Himanshu Garg Respondent :- U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority Thru. Its Secretary Counsel for Petitioner :- Apoorva Tewari,Siddharth Nandwani Counsel for Respondent :- Shobhit Mohan Shukla Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J. 1. Heard Shri Apoorva Tewari, Advocate assisted by Shri Siddharth Nandwani and Shri Sarvjit Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Shri Shobhit Mohan Shukla, learned Counsel for the U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA). 2. Since all these petitions arise out of same impugned orders, therefore, they are being heard and decided together by a common order. 3. By means of these petitions, the petitioner has challenged the decision dated 01.02.2025 taken in the meeting dated 21.01.2025, which was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 01.02.2025 impugned herein. The minutes of the meeting dated 21.01.2025 have been brought on record with the counter affidavit filed by the RERA and on perusal of the said minutes alongwith the impugned letter, we find that it verbatim contains the same recital as in the said minutes, therefore, challenge to the said minutes dated 21.01.2025 is implicit in the prayer clause of the writ petition. 4. After hearing the parties and perusing the records what we find is that the petitioner had applied for registration of as many as five phases of a project by moving five separate applications. Show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 18.01.2025 pointing out three objections/deficiencies to which the petitioner replied on 20.01.2025. Thereafter, a meeting took place on 21.01.2025 wherein the petitioner and the RERA authorities were present and based on the said meeting, minutes were drawn, copy of which is annexed with the counter affidavit. The petitioner's Counsel contends that contrary to the three objections/deficiencies pointed out in the show cause notice dated 18.01.2025, two other objections/deficiencies have been taken into consideration by RERA in respect of all the five phases of the project about which the petitioner was never confronted. Additionally, he says that so far as the objection at point No.1 is concerned though it was part of the show cause notice dated 18.01.2025, a suitable reply was given but the same has not been considered rather in the minutes it has been stated that there is no specific explanation in this regard, which is factually incorrect and contrary to the records. Counsel for the RERA says that the petitioner had participated in the said meeting and whatever explanations were offered were not found to be tenable based on the records before RERA, however, he does not dispute the fact that what transpired in the meeting with the petitioner and what explanations, if any, were submitted has not been dealt with in so many words but he says RERA took into account the resolution plan before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), copy of which is annexed as Annexure No.19 to the writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner says that the petitioner was under the impression that based on the discussion during the meeting a transcript of which was prepared by the petitioner it was given an opportunity to submit a written explanation, the said points were explained by the petitioner vide letter dated 23.01.2025, 24.01.2025 and 30.01.2025 but the impugned letter dated 01.02.2025 communicated to the petitioner does not contain any discussion of the representation. Counsel for the RERA says that the petitioner was under some misconception. Firstly, the transcript could not have been prepared by the petitioner and is barred by office order of RERA dated 09.02.2024 issued under Section 25 of the U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority Act, 2016 and Rule 19 of U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority Rules, 2016. Secondly, he says that the minutes of the meeting dated 21.01.2025 had been drawn on the said date itself, therefore, the facts as stated are not correct. 5. Be that as it may, it is not in dispute that so far as point No.1 of the show cause notice dated 18.01.2025 regarding the property in question being mortgaged with (Lender) Prithvi Asset Reconstruction and Securitization Company Limited some explanation was offered by the petitioner in his reply dated 20.01.2025 but the same has not been appropriately considered in the meeting dated 21.01.2025 and the recital in this regard is rather cryptic. As regards the two other objections at point No.2 and 3, the same were not part of the show cause notice dated 18.01.2025, therefore, the petitioner was not confronted in writing with the same. If these points/objections came up for consideration in the meeting dated 21.01.2025 then the response of the petitioner during such meeting and what transpired therein should also have been mentioned in the minutes dated 21.01.2025. There appears to be some confusion as to whether further opportunity had been granted to the petitioner for meeting the objections referred in the minutes dated 21.01.2025 or not. Moreover, during course of argument Shri Shukla, learned Counsel for the RERA extensively referred to the resolution plan worked out by the NCLT i.e. Annexure No.19 to the writ petition, however, we do not find any such discussion in the minutes of the meeting dated 21.01.2025 except a cursory reference. The main question was as to whether under the resolution plan worked out by NCLT any fund, which is to be deposited in the escrow account would be used by the petitioner for implementation of the project registration of which has been sought by RERA or not, if it could be used, to what extent and it is this issue, which would be relevant. Therefore, looking into the entirety of the matter it would be better if a fresh decision is taken considering the responses of the petitioner dated 23.01.2025, 24.01.2025 and 30.01.2025 at the earliest say within a period of four weeks. If the decision is sought to be based on any objections/deficiencies, which was not part of the show cause notice dated 18.01.2025 then RERA should communicate the same to the petitioner explicitly with clarity so that the petitioner may respond to it appropriately within one week from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the RERA authorities and the said responses should be taken into consideration. The period of four weeks referred hereinabove shall start from the date of issuance of such supplementary show cause notice as aforesaid. Accordingly, the impugned letters/decisions in all the five petitions are quashed subject to the aforesaid arrangement. It would be better if the petitioner is heard before taking such decision and whatever the stand of the petitioner during the hearing be recorded in the decision to be taken by RERA, which may not necessarily entail a lengthy recording of statement but the gist of the relevant version of the petitioner should be made part of the decision. All pleas are open for consideration by RERA. 6. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petitions are disposed of. (Om Prakash Shukla, J.) (Rajan Roy, J.) Order Date :- 7.4.2025 -Piyush- Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench