Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 30896 (JHR)

JAIRAM CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR PRINCE KUMAR SINGH v. THE SECRETARY, JHARKHAND REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY

WPC/1386/2025 · 2025-07-23

Rajesh Shankar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:JHHC:20157 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 1386 of 2025 ----- Jairam Construction Pvt. Ltd., through its Director-Prince Singh, S/o Madan Singh, R/o Plot No. 41, Jairam House, Harina Bagan, near Kali Mandir, Nawagarh, P.O.- Nawagarh, P.S.-Katras, District-Dhanbad .......... Petitioner -Versus- 1. The Secretary, Jharkhand Real Estate Regulatory Authority, having office at 7th Floor, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, near Kutchary, P.O.-Ranchi, P.S.-Kotwali, District-Ranchi 2. The Managing Director, JMADA, Dhanbad 3. The Secretary, JMADA, Dhanbad 4. The Town Planer, JMADA, Dhanbad 5. Smt. Rina, W/o Sri Sawami Nandan, C/o Vijay Kumar, Aashiyana, beside hotel D.N. Grand, Lalu Khatal Road, P.O.-Bariatu, P.S.-Sadar, District-Ranchi .......... Respondents ----- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Kalyan Banerjee, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Santosh Kumar Jha, Advocate ----- Order No.06 Date: 23.07.2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 06.12.2023 passed by the Chairman, Jharkhand Real Estate Regulatory Authority in Complaint Case No. 28 of 2023 preferred by the complainant/respondent no. 5, whereby the petitioner- company has been directed to complete the remaining works of flat of the respondent no. 5 within three months and to handover the possession of the same to her. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering that the aforesaid order is appealable before the Jharkhand Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, the instant writ petition is not maintainable at this stage. Hence, I am 2025:JHHC:20157 2 not inclined to entertain the present writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed as not maintainable. The petitioner is at liberty to avail the appellate remedy. 3. Pending interlocutory application(s) also stands disposed of. (Rajesh Shankar, J.) Vikas/