1 Reserved on : 23.08.2025 Pronounced on : 19.09.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION No.3379 OF 2024 (GM - RES) CONNECTED WITH WRIT PETITION No.656 OF 2023 (GM - RES), WRIT PETITION No.2306 OF 2023 (GM - RES), WRIT PETITION No.3101 OF 2023 (GM - RES), WRIT PETITION No.3521 OF 2023 (GM - RES), WRIT PETITION No.4155 OF 2023 (GM - RES), WRIT PETITION No.4293 OF 2023 (GM - RES), WRIT PETITION No.9494 OF 2023 (GM - RES), WRIT PETITION No.10108 OF 2023 (GM - RES), WRIT PETITION No.10282 OF 2023 (GM - RES), WRIT PETITION No.10309 OF 2023 (GM - RES), WRIT PETITION No.12544 OF 2023 (GM - RES), WRIT PETITION No.13199 OF 2023 (GM - RES), WRIT PETITION No.15449 OF 2023 (GM - RES), WRIT PETITION No.15473 OF 2023 (GM - RES), WRIT PETITION No.15658 OF 2023 (GM - RES), WRIT PETITION No.15746 OF 2023 (GM - RES), WRIT PETITION No.15996 OF 2023 (GM - RES), WRIT PETITION No.16897 OF 2023 (GM - RES), WRIT PETITION No.18662 OF 2023 (GM - RES), WRIT PETITION No.20391 OF 2023 (GM - RES), WRIT PETITION No.20705 OF 2023 (GM - RES), WRIT PETITION No.20706 OF 2023 (GM - RES), WRIT PETITION No.20829 OF 2023 (GM - RES), WRIT PETITION No.24816 OF 2023 (GM - RES), WRIT PETITION No.25630 OF 2023 (GM - RES), R 2 WRIT PETITION No.27565 OF 2023 (GM - RES), WRIT PETITION No.29044 OF 2023 (GM - RES), WRIT PETITION No.29252 OF 2023 (GM - RES), WRIT PETITION No.29375 OF 2023 (GM - RES), WRIT PETITION No.2453 OF 2024 (GM - RES), WRIT PETITION No.3206 OF 2024 (GM - RES), WRIT PETITION No.3596 OF 2024 (GM - RES), WRIT PETITION No.3941 OF 2024 (GM - RES), WRIT PETITION No.4770 OF 2024 (GM - RES), WRIT PETITION No.4775 OF 2024 (GM - RES), WRIT PETITION No.5281 OF 2024 (GM - RES), WRIT PETITION No.5797 OF 2024 (GM - RES), WRIT PETITION No.5802 OF 2024 (GM - RES), WRIT PETITION No.7291 OF 2024 (GM - RES), WRIT PETITION No.7654 OF 2024 (GM - RES), WRIT PETITION No.8583 OF 2024 (GM - RES), WRIT PETITION No.11439 OF 2024 (GM - RES), WRIT PETITION No.12202 OF 2024 (GM - RES), WRIT PETITION No.12203 OF 2024 (GM - RES), WRIT PETITION No.12332 OF 2024 (GM - RES), WRIT PETITION No.13209 OF 2024 (GM - RES), WRIT PETITION No.13851 OF 2024 (GM - RES), WRIT PETITION No.14128 OF 2024 (GM - RES), WRIT PETITION No.16477 OF 2024 (GM - RES), WRIT PETITION No.18008 OF 2024 (GM - RES), WRIT PETITION No.21871 OF 2024 (GM - RES), WRIT PETITION No.24692 OF 2024 (GM - RES), WRIT PETITION No.25216 OF 2024 (GM - RES), WRIT PETITION No.25254 OF 2024 (GM - RES), WRIT PETITION No.25323 OF 2024 (GM - RES), WRIT PETITION No.26531 OF 2024 (GM - RES), WRIT PETITION No.26568 OF 2024 (GM - RES), WRIT PETITION No.26851 OF 2024 (GM - RES), WRIT PETITION No.29253 OF 2024 (GM - RES), WRIT PETITION No.29405 OF 2024 (GM - RES), WRIT PETITION No.29631 OF 2024 (GM - RES), WRIT PETITION No.29843 OF 2024 (GM - RES), WRIT PETITION No.31238 OF 2024 (GM - RES), WRIT PETITION No.31922 OF 2024 (GM - RES), 3 WRIT PETITION No.32672 OF 2024 (GM - RES), WRIT PETITION No.32681 OF 2024 (GM - RES), WRIT PETITION No.33637 OF 2024 (GM - RES), WRIT PETITION No.33648 OF 2024 (GM - RES), WRIT PETITION No.33673 OF 2024 (GM - RES), WRIT PETITION No.33676 OF 2024 (GM - RES), WRIT PETITION No.3367 OF 2025 (GM - RES), WRIT PETITION No.3731 OF 2025 (GM - RES), WRIT PETITION No.13851 OF 2025 (GM - RES), WRIT PETITION No.15925 OF 2025 (GM – RES) IN WRIT PETITION No.3379 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SHARADA ACHAR W/O SRI PADMANABHA ACHAR AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, RESIDING AT 1-1, CHITHRAPADI SALIKAMA POST, ACHALADY UDUPI – 576 225. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI RAGHAVA P., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY UNDER SECRETARY (RERA) HOUSING DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA SECRETARIAT ROOM NO.211, II FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY 4 REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, AUTHORITY 2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBLI BLOCK, UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND, 3RD FLOOR, MISSION ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 027. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R-1; SRI GOWTHAMDEV C.ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH CIRCULAR IN TOTO “IMPOSING DELAY FEE FOR DELAYED SUBMISSIONS OF QUARTERLY UPDATE AND ANNUAL AUDIT STATEMENT” DTD 03.09.2020, BEARING NO.RERA/FINANCE- SECTION/83/2020-21 AS UNDER ANNEXURE-A, ISSUED BY THE R- 2 ON THE GROUNDS OF IT BEING ULTRA VIRES TO ACT; SET ASIDE THE DEMAND NOTICE AS UNDER ANNEXURE-D, LEVIED BY THE R-2 AGAINST THE PETITIONER; DIRECT THE R-2 TO PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO FILE THE QUARTERLY UPDATES ON THE WEB PORTAL, AS REGARDS TO THE PROJECT OF THE PETITIONER. IN WRIT PETITION No.656 OF 2023 BETWEEN: JCSV BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS NO.72, ASK MANSION, SYNDICATE BANK LAYOUT ARKERE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD BENGALURU – 560 076 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS 5 MR. K. JAGADISH AND SANTHOSH K. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. BOJANNA K.J., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHAN SOUDHA, HOUSING DEPARTMENT AMBEDKAR VEEDI BENGALURU – 560 001 2 . THE CHAIRMAN KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY SECOND FLOOR SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK 3RD CROSS ROAD, CSI COMPOUND MISSION ROAD, SAMPANGI RAMA NAGARA BENGALURU – 560 027 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1 SRI. I.S. DEVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE DELAY FEE CALCULATED BY R2-VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. IN WRIT PETITION No.2306 OF 2023 BETWEEN: M/S HORIZON CONSTRUCTIONS NO 204, 2ND FLOOR SWASTIK CENTRAL NEELIGIN ROAD HUBLI – 580 029 REP BY ITS MANAGING PARTNERS SRI. AMRUT MEHARWADE ... PETITIONER (BY SRI DARSHAN R., ADVOCATE) 6 AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE SECRETARY HOUSING DEPARTMENT RROM NO.211, 2ND FLOOR VIKAS SOUDHA BANGALORE - 560 001 2 . KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY REP BY ITS SECRETARY 2ND FLOOR, SIILVER JUBLIEE BLOCK UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND 3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD BENGALURU – 560 027 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M. RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1 SRI. GOWTHAMDEV C. ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE PETITIONERS PROJECT BEARING REGISTRATION NO. PRM/KA/RERA/1259/479/PR/200117/003180 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D, DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AUTHORITY IN RESPECT OF THE PROJECT OF THE PETITIONER BEARING REGISTRATION NO.PRM/KA/RERA/1259/479/PR/200117/003180 AT ANNX-D AND ETC. IN WRIT PETITION No.3101 OF 2023 BETWEEN: M/S HORIZON CONSTRUCTIONS NO.204, 2ND FLOOR, SWASTIK CENTRAL NEELIGIN ROAD HUBLI - 580 029, 7 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SHIR AMRUT MEHARWADE PARTNERSHIP FIRM, REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 58(1) OF INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1982. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI DARSHAN R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY THE SECRETARY, HOUSING DEPARTMENT, ROOM NO.211, 2ND FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA BANGALORE-560001 2 . KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY REP BY ITS SECRETARY, 2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK, UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND, 3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD, BENGALURU-560027 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M. RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1 SRI. GOWTHAMDEV C. ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE CIRCULAR DATED 03.09.2020 BEARING NO.RERA/FINANCE-SECTION/83/2020-21 ISSUED BY THE R-2 AUTHORITY VIDE ANNX-F AND ETC. 8 IN WRIT PETITION No.3521 OF 2023 BETWEEN: M/S OPERA STRUCTURES A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT 1932 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.48, 17TH G CROSS, J P NAGAR, 5TH PHASE, BENGALURU REP BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, MR. KARTHIK K.V. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SANJAY KRISHNA V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY THE SECRETARY HOUSING DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA SECRETARIAT ROOM NO.213, II FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001 2 . KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY NO 1/14, 2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE PARK BLOCK UNIT BUILDINGS, CSI COMPOUND 3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 027, REP BY ITS SECRETARY ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1 SRI. GOWTHAMDEV C. ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2) 9 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE CIRCULAR DATED 03.09.2020 BEARING NO.RERA/FINANCE- SECTION/83/2020.21 UNDER ANNEXURE-D UNDER WHICH DELAY FEE FOR DELAYED SUBMISSION OF QUARTERLY UPDATE AND ANNUAL AUDIT STATEMENT IS IMPOSED ON THE PETITIONER. IN WRIT PETITION No.4155 OF 2023 BETWEEN: M/S. CLASSIC VENTURES LLP., A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO. 6787, 4TH FLOOR, 17TH MAIN ROAD 6TH CROSS, 3RD BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU - 560 034 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS SRI Y.C.SANDEEP REDDY S/O RAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI PRAVEEN H. P., ADVOCATE) AND: THE KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY HAVING OFFICE AT NO.1/14 2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND 3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD BENGALURU - 560 027. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI I.S. DEVAIAH, ADVOCATE) 10 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED CIRCULAR BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE SECTION/83/2020-21, DATED 03.09.2020 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B1 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT IMPOSING PENALTY FOR DELAY IN UPLOADING THE PETITIONERS PROJECT STATUS REPORT/DETAILS ON THE WEBSITE OF THE RESPONDENT BY ISSUING A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AS ILLEGAL. IN WRIT PETITION No.4293 OF 2023 BETWEEN: RAJ BUILDER AND DEVELOPERS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVIGN ITS OFFICE AT NO.271/A, 8TH MAIN, 1ST FLOOR VIDYAPEETHA, BSK 3RD STAGE BENGALURU – 560 085 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI RAJENDRA. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI PRAVEEN H. P., ADVOCATE) AND: THE KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY HAVING OFFICE AT NO.1/14, 2ND FLOOR SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND 3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD BENGALURU – 560 027. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI I.S.DEVAIAH, ADVOCATE) 11 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED CIRCULAR BEARING NO.RERA/FINANCE SECTION/83/2020-21, DATED 03.09.2020 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT, IMPOSING PENALTY FOR DELAY IN UPLOADING THE PETITIONERS PROJECT STATUS REPORT/DETAILS ON THE WEBSITE OF THE RESPONDENT. IN WRIT PETITION No.9494 OF 2023 BETWEEN: M/S. UNISHIRE PROMOTERS PVT., LTD., A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AND HAVING ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE AT NO.36, UNISHIRE SQUARE RAILWAY PARALLEL ROAD NEHRU NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 020. PRESENTLY AT NO.42, CASTLE STREET ASHOK NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 025 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY SRI PRATIK K.MEHTA. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI G.S.VENKAT SUBBA RAO, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA ROOM NO. 213, 2ND FLOOR VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 12 2 . THE SECRETARY KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY NO.1-14, 2ND FLOOR SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND 3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD BENGALURU - 560 027. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI GOWTHAMDEV C.ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED CIRCULAR DTD 03.09.2020 BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE SECTION/83/2020-21 UNDER ANNX-D BY WHICH FEE IS LEVIED ON THE PETITIONER AND ETC., IN WRIT PETITION No.10108 OF 2023 BETWEEN: M/S. AXIS CONCEPT S CAPSTONE PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTRED OFFICE AT 1ST FLOOR, MAINI SADAN NO.38, 7TH CROSS, LAVELLE ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. PRASANNA S. K. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SANJAY KRISHNA V., ADVOCATE) 13 AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY HOUSING DEPARTEMENT ROOM NO.213, II FLOOR VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY NO.1/14, 2ND FLOOR SILVER JUBLIEE PARK BLOCK UNIT BUILDINGS, CSI COMPOUND 3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD BENGALURU – 560 027 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI I.S.DEVAIAH, ADVOCATER FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT IN THE LIKE NATURE QUASHING THE CIRCULAR DATED 3.9.2020 BEARING NO.RERA/FINANCE-SECTION/83/2020-21 UNDER ANNX-D BY WHICH DELAY FEE IS LEVIED ON THE PETITIONER. IN WRIT PETITION No.10282 OF 2023 BETWEEN: M/S. PRERNA CONSTRUCTIONS A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 14 NO.2607, 27TH MAIN, 1ST SECTOR HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU – 560 102 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR MR. ASHISH KUMAR AGARWAL. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SANJAY KRISHNA V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY HOUSING DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA SECRETARIAT, ROOM NO.213 II FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY NO.1/14, 2ND FLOOR SILVER JUBILEE PARK BLOCK UNIT BUILDINGS, CSI COMPOUND 3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD BENGALURU – 560 027 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI I.S.DEVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE CIRCULAR DTD 03/09/2020 BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE-SEC/83/2020-21 UNDER ANNEXURE-C BY WHICH DELAY FEE IS LEVIED ON THE PETITIONER. 15 IN WRIT PETITION No.10309 OF 2023 BETWEEN: M/S. AXIS CONCEPTS CAPSTONE PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 1ST FLOOR, MAINI SADAN, NO.38 7TH CROSS, LAVELLE ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. PRASANNA S. K., ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SANJAY KRISHNA V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY HOUSING DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA SECRETARIAT, ROOM NO.213 II FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY NO.1/14, 2ND FLOOR SILVER JUBILEE PARK BLOCK UNIT BUILDINGS, CSI COMPOUND 3RD CROSS, MISSON ROAD BENGALURU – 560 027 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; 16 SRI I.S.DEVAIAH, ADVOCATER FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE CIRCULAR DTD 03/09/2020 BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE-SEC/83/2020-21 UNDER ANNEXURE-D BY WHICH DELAY FEE IS LEVIED ON THE PETITIONER AND ETC., IN WRIT PETITION No.12544 OF 2023 BETWEEN: MR. SHARANBASAPPA B.IRADI S/O MR. BANDAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.8-1305/129/2/20 HUMNABAD ROAD, REVANASIDDESHWARA COLONY KAPNOOR, KALABURGI - 585 104. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SANJAY KRISHNA V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY HOUSING DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA SECRETRAIAT ROOM NO.213, II FLOOR VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2 . KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY NO.1/14, 2ND FLOOR SILVER JUBILEE PARK BLOCK UNIT BUILDINGS, CSI COMPOUND 2ND CROSS, MISSION ROAD 17 BENGALURU - 560 027 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI I.S.DEVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE CIRCULAR DTD 03.09.2020 BEARING NO.RERA/FINANCE-SECTION/83/2020-21 UNDER ANNEXURE-D BY WHICH DELAY FEE IS LEVIED ON THE PETITIONER, SET ASIDE THE DELAY FEE UNDER ANNEXURE-C LEVIED BY THE R2 ON THE PETITIONER IN WRIT PETITION No.13199 OF 2023 BETWEEN: M/S. S AND S PROPERTIES REG. NO. 195/2012-13 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MR. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O ASHOK REDDY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS NO.886, S.R.TOWNWER 4TH FLOOR, 6TH CROSS, 4TH BLOCK H.B.R. LAYOUT, BENGALURU – 560 043. REG. UNDER CO-OP SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI NANJA REDDY P. N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS 18 PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOUSING DEPARTMENT NO.211, AND 213, 2ND FLOOR VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU- 560 001. 2 . KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 1/14, 2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK UNITY BUILDING, 3RD CROSS MISSION ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 027. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI GOWTHAMDEV C.ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD 26/05/2023 IMPOSING THE PENALTY/FINE OF RS. 6,50,000/- (RUPEES SIX LAKHS FIFTY THOUSAND ONLY) QUARTERLY AND AMOUNTING TO RS. 39,00,000/- (RUPEES THIRTY NINE LAKHS ONLY) FOR SIX QUARTERS (ANNEXURE-H) ISSUED BY THE R-2 IN RESPECT OF THE EARLIER PROJECT BEARING RERA REGISTRATION NO. PRM/KA/RERA/1250/303/PR/190131/002318 IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE RERA ACT AND THE RULES MADE THEREUNDER AND IN VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. IN WRIT PETITION No.15449 OF 2023 BETWEEN: M/S V.G.PAREKH AND COMPANY A PARTNERSHIP FIRM DULY REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT BLDEA'S HOSPITAL ROAD VIJAYAPUR - 586 101. 19 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. MAHAVEERCHAND GHEVARCHAND PAREKH. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI I.S.DEVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE SECRETARY HOUSING DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA SECRETARIAT ROOM NO. 213, II FLOOR VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2 . KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY NO.1/14, 2ND FLOOR SILVER JUBILEE PARK BLOCK UNIT BUILDINGS, CSI COMPOUND 3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD BENGALURU - 560 027 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI I.S.DEVAIAH, AGA FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE CIRCULAR DATED 03/09/2020 BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE- SECTION/83/2020-21 UNDER ANNEXURE-D BY R2 WHICH DELAY FEE IS LEVIED ON THE PETITIONER AND ETC., 20 IN WRIT PETITION No.15473 OF 2023 BETWEEN: M/S. V.G.PAREKH AND COMPANY A PARTNERSHIP FIRM DULY REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT BLDEA'S HOSPITAL ROAD VIJAYAPUR - 586 101 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. MAHAVEERCHAND GHEVARCHAND PAREKH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SANJAY KRISHNA V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE SECRETARY HOUSING DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA SECRETARIAT ROOM NO. 213, II FLOOR VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2 . KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY NO.1/14, 2ND FLOOR SILVER JUBILEE PARK BLOCK UNIT BUILDINGS, CSI COMPOUND 3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD BENGALURU - 560 027 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI I.S.DEVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) 21 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE CIRCULAR DATED 03/09/2020 BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE- SECTION/83/2020-21 UNDER ANNEXURE-C BY R2 WHICH DELAY FEE IS LEVIED ON THE PETITIONER AND ETC., IN WRIT PETITION No.15658 OF 2023 BETWEEN: M/S. HIREN WAHEN BUILDTECH A PARTNERSHIP FIRM DULY REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT SY. NO.86/4, AND 86/6 PANATHUR MAIN ROAD KADUBESANAHALLI BENGALURU – 560 103 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. L.PRAKASH. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SANJAY KRISHNA V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY HOUSING DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA SECRETARIAT, ROOM NO.213 II FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY 22 NO.1/14, 2ND FLOOR SILVER JUBILEE PARK BLOCK UNIT BUILDINGS, CSI COMPOUND 3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD BENGALURU – 560 027 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI I.S.DEVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE CIRCULAR DTD. 03.09.2020 BEARING NO.RERA/FINANCE- SEC/83/2020-21 UNDER ANNX-E BY THE R-2 WHICH DELAY FEE IS LEVIED ON THE PETITIONER AND ETC., IN WRIT PETITION No.15746 OF 2023 BETWEEN: VMAKS BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.131, 1ST FLOOR, 6TH ‘C’ MAIN 4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 011 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR. MAHESH BABU R., S/O LATE G.RAMASWAMY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI PRAVEEN H. P., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY 23 GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA SECRETARIAT ROOM NO.213, II FLOOR VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . THE KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY NO.1/14, 2ND FLOOR SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND 3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD BENGALURU – 560 027. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI I.S.DEVAIAH, ADVOCATER FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED CIRCULAR DATED 03/09/2020 BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE SECTION/83/2020-21 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B ISSUED BY THE R2 LEVYING DELAY FEE ON THE PETITIONER BY ISSUING A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AS ILLEGAL AND ETC., IN WRIT PETITION No.15996 OF 2023 BETWEEN: M/S. ONENESS BUILDERS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT SAI SAMARTH APARTMENTS 8TH CROSS, HINDWADI BELAGAVI – 590 006 REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. MADAN BABURAO BAMANE. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SANJAY KRISHNA V., ADVOCATE) 24 AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE SECRETARY HOUSING DEPARTMENT ROOM NO.213, II FLOOR VIKASA SOUDA, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . KARNATAKA REAL EXTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY NO.1/14, 2ND FLOOR SILVER JUBILEE PARK BLOCK UNITY BUILDINGS, CSI COMPOUND 3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD BENGALURU – 560 027 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI I.S.DEVAIAH, ADVOCATER FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE CIRCULAR DT. 03.09.2020 BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE/SECTION/83/2020-21 BY R2, UNDER ANNX-D BY WHICH DELAY FEE IS LEVIED ON THE PETITIONER AND ETC., IN WRIT PETITION No.16897 OF 2023 BETWEEN: M/S. PAIS DEVELOPERS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT D.NO. 3-W-1-27/2, GROUND FLOOR MEDONNA MANSION, BEJAI CHURCH 25 CROSS ROAD, BEJAI MANGALURU DAKSHINA KANNADA - 575 004 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. ALDEN PAIS ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SANJAY KRISHNA V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY HOUSING DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA SECRETARIAT ROOM NO. 213, II FLOOR VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2 . KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY NO. 1/14, 2nd FLOOR SILVER JUBILEE PARK BLOCK UNIT BUILDINGS, CSI COMPOUND 3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD BENGALURU - 560 027. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI I.S.DEVAIAH, ADVOCATER FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE CIRCULAR DT. 03.09.2020 BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE-SECTION/83/2020-21 UNDER ANNX-E BY R2 WHICH DELAY FEE IS LEVIED ON THE PETITIONER AND ETC., 26 IN WRIT PETITION No.18662 OF 2023 BETWEEN: M/S. BRICKS AND MILESTONES PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932 NO. 1140, 17TH CROSS, SECTOR 7, HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU – 560 102 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER KIRAN V., ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SANDEEP LAHIRI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HOUSING DEPARTMENT, ROOM NO. 211, 2ND FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, 2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK, UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND, 3RD CROSS, MISSON ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 027. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R-1; SRI I.S.DEVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE 27 CIRCULAR BEARING NO.RERA/FINANCE-SECTION/83/2020-21 DATED 03.09.2020 ISSUED BY THE R2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A. IN WRIT PETITION No.20391 OF 2023 BETWEEN: UNIVERSAL DEVELOPERS PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932 AT NO.G1, H.A.ARCADE, 872 17TH ‘E’ MAIN, 6TH BLOCK KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU – 560 095 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY/PARTNER K.S.RAGHAVENDRA NAIK ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SANDEEP LAHIRI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY HOUSING DEPARTMENT ROOM NO.211, 2ND FLOOR VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND 3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD BENGALURU – 560 027. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; 28 SRI GOWTHAMDEV C.ULLAL, ADVOCATE AND SRI I.S.DEVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE CIRCULAR BEARING NO. RERA/FIANCE-SECTION/83/2020-21 DATED 03.09.2020 ISSUED BY THE R2 VIDE ANNEXURE A. IN WRIT PETITION No.20705 OF 2023 BETWEEN: M/S. CLASSIC VENTURES LLP., A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.6787, 4TH FLOOR, 17TH MAIN ROAD 6TH CROSS, 3RD BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU – 560 034. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI Y.C.SANDEEP REDDY S/O RAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI PRAVEEN H. P., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA SECRETARIAT ROOM NO.213, II FLOOR VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . THE KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY HAVING OFFICE AT 29 NO.1/14, 2ND FLOOR SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND 3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD BENGALURU – 560 027. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI GOWTHAMDEV C.ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED CIRCULAR DTD 03.09.2020 BEARING NO.RERA/FINANCE-SECTION/83/2020-21 ISSUED BY THE R2 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C AND ETC., IN WRIT PETITION No.20706 OF 2023 BETWEEN: M/S. CLASSIC VENTURES LLP., A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.6787 4TH FLOOR, 17TH MAIN ROAD 6TH CROSS, 3RD BLOCK KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU – 560 034 REGISTERED UNDER RERA ACT REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI Y.C.SANDEEP REDDY S/O RAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS ... PETITIONER (BY SRI PRAVEEN H. P., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA 30 REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA SECRETARIAT ROOM NO.213, II FLOOR VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . THE KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY HAVING OFFICE AT NO.1/14, 2ND FLOOR SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND 3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD BENGALURU – 560 027. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI GOWTHAMDEV C.ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED CIRCULAR DTD 03.09.2020 BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE SECTION/83/2020-21 ISSUED BY THE R-2 PRODUCED AT ANNX-B BY ISSUING A WRIT OF CERTIORARI. IN WRIT PETITION No.20829 OF 2023 BETWEEN: GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED SAHAKARA SANKEERNA, SAHAKARA BHAVANA CHAMARAJA DOUBLE ROAD MYSORE – 570 004 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR R.JOSEPH. A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER INDIAN SOCIETY CO-OPERATIVE ACT, 1950. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SANDEEP LAHIRI, ADVOCATE) 31 AND: 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY HOUSING DEPARTMENT ROOM NO.211, 2ND FLOOR VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND 3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD BENGALURU – 560 027. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI GOWTHAMDEV C.ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE CIRCULAR BEARING NO.RERA/FINANCE-SECTION/83/2020-21 DTD 03.09.2020 ISSUED BY THE R2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A. IN WRIT PETITION No.24816 OF 2023 BETWEEN: M/S. JRC PROJECTS A PATNERSHIP FIRMS REGISTRED UNDER THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 313, RAINBOW RESIDENCY JUNNASANDRA VILLAGE, NEAR WIPRO SARJAPURA ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 035 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. B.C.MANOHAR REDDY. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SANJAY KRISHNA V., ADVOCATE) 32 AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY HOUSING DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA SECRETARIAT ROOM NO. 213, II FLOOR VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY NO. 1/14, 2ND FLOOR SILVER JUBILEE PARK BLOCK UNIT BUILDINGS, CSI COMPOUND 3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD BENGALURU – 560 027 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI I.S.DEVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE CIRCULAR DTD 03.09.2020 BEARING NO.RERA/FINANCE-SECTION/83/2020-21 UNDER ANNEXURE-D BY WHICH DELAY FEE IS LEVIED ON THE PETITIONER AND ETC., IN WRIT PETITION No.25630 OF 2023 BETWEEN: M/S. PRASIDDHI CLASSIC REALTY A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.370, 5TH MAIN, 12TH CROSS 33 DOLLARS COLONY (HIG), RMV II STAGE BENGALURU - 560 094 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER MR. B.SRINIVAS ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SANJAY KRISHNA V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY HOUSING DEPARTMENT GOVERNMETN OF KARNATAKA SECRETARIAT, ROOM NO. 213 II FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001. 2 . KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY NO.1/14, 2ND FLOOR SILVER JUBILEE PARK BLOCK UNIT BUILDINGS, CSI COMPOUND 3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD BENGALURU - 560 027 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI I.S.DEVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE CIRCULAR DTD 03.09.2020 BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE- SECTION/83/2020- 21 UNDER ANNX-E BY WHICH DELAY FEE IS LEVIED ON THE PETITIONER AND ETC., 34 N WRIT PETITION No.27565 OF 2023 BETWEEN: M/S. SAIRAM DWELLINGS PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AND HAVING ITS ADMINSTRATIVE OFFICE AT NO.7, 3RD FLOOR, S.V.ARCADE, 1ST MAIN ATTIGUPE ROAD, MYSORE INCOME TAX LAYOUT BENGALURU - 560 040 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY/DIRECTOR SRI S.DEEPAK S/O MR. S.SHANKAR R/AT NO.949, 1ST ‘E’ MAIN ROAD 2ND PHASE, GIRINAGAR BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE BENGALURU - 560 085. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI G.S.VENKAT SUBBA RAO, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA ROOM NO.213, 2ND FLOOR VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . THE SECRETARY KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY NO.1/14, 2ND FLOOR SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND 35 3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD BENGALURU - 560 027. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI GOWTHAMDEV C.ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED CIRCULAR DTD 03.09.2020 BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE-SECTION/83/2020-21 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY VIDE ANNX-A AND ETC., IN WRIT PETITION No.29044 OF 2023 BETWEEN: MR. MANING TELI S/O BASAVANTHAPPA TELI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT MAHANTESH NAGAR MAIGUR ROAD, JHAMAKHANDI BAGALKOT – 587 301. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SANJAY KRISHNA V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY HOUSING DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA SECRETARIAT ROOM NO.213, II FLOOR VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . KARNATAKA REAL ESATE 36 REGULATORY AUTHORITY NO.1/14, 2ND FLOOR SILVER JUBILEE PARK BLOCK UNIT BUILDNGS, CSI COMPOUND 3RD CORSS, MISSION ROAD BENGALURU – 560 027 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI GOWTHAMDEV C.ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE CIRCULAR DTD 03.09.2020 BEARING NO.RERA/FINANCE-SECTION/83/2020-21 UNDER ANNEXURE-C BY R2 WHICH DELAY FEE IS LEVIED ON THE PETITIONER AND ETC., IN WRIT PETITION No.29252 OF 2023 BETWEEN: COUNTRY CLUB HOSPITALITY AND HOLIDAYS LTD., A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 AT AMRUTHA CASTLE 5-9-16, SAIFABAD OPPOSITE TO SECRETARIAT HYDERABAD – 500 063 REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. VASEEM ULLAH QURESHI. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SANDEEP LAHIRI, ADVOCATE) 37 AND: 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY HOUSING DEPARTMENT ROOM NO.211, 2ND FLOOR VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND 3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD BENGALURU – 560 027. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI GOWTHAMDEV C.ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE CIRCULAR BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE-SECTION/83/2020-21 DATED 03/09/2020 ISSUED BY THE R2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A. IN WRIT PETITION No.29375 OF 2023 BETWEEN: M/S. OZONE URBANA INFRA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 3, LEVELLE ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001. REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY DIRECTOR 38 SRI S.SAIPRASAD S/O SATYAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI G.S.VENKAT SUBBA RAO, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA ROOM NO.213, 2ND FLOOR VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2 . THE SECRETARY KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY NO. 1/14, 2ND FLOOR SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND 3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 027. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI GOWTHAMDEV C.ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED CIRCULAR DATED 03/09/2020 BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE-SECTION /83/2020-21 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC., 39 IN WRIT PETITION No.2453 OF 2024 BETWEEN: RAI ESTATES A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN NO.10, NEW SAYYAJI RAO ROAD BAMBOO BAZAAR MYSORE – 570 021 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR K.SUBRAMANYA RAI. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SANDEEP LAHIRI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY HOUSING DEPARTMENT, ROOM NO.211 2ND FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND 3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD BENGALURU – 560 027. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI I.S.DEVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE 40 CIRCULAR BEARING NO.RERA/FINANCE-SECTION/83/2020-21 DTD 03.09.2020 ISSUED BY THE R2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A. IN WRIT PETITION No.3206 OF 2024 BETWEEN: M/S. SREE AND SREE BUILDERS AND PROMOTERS REGISTERED UNDER PARTNERSHIP FIRM REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED PARTNER SRI P.SREEDHAR REDDY, OFFICE AT NO. 1135 AVANI ARCADE, 2ND FLOOR, 17TH CROSS 5TH MAIN, 7TH SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT BENGALURU - 560 102. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SANDEEP LAHIRI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY UNDER SECRETARY (RERA) HOUSING DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA SECRETARIAT ROOM NO. 211, II FLOOR VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2 . SECRETARY KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY 2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND 3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD BENGALURU - 560 027. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI I.S.DEVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) 41 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH CIRCULAR IN TOTO IMPOSING DELAY FEE FOR DELAYED SUBMISSIONS OF QUARTERLY UPDATE AND ANNUAL AUDIT STATEMENT DTD SEPTEMBER 03, 2020, BEARING NO.RERA/FINANCE-SECTION/83/2020-21 AS UNDER ANNEXURE-A, ISSUED BY THE R2 ON THE GROUNDS OF IT BEING ULTRA VIRES TO ACT AND ETC., IN WRIT PETITION No.3596 OF 2024 BETWEEN: M/S. SINDHURI INFRA PROJECTS A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM UNDER THE PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED PARTNER SRI MUNGAMURU ANILKUMAR REDDY OFFICE AT FLAT NO.C1 ARRCON MANIPURA APARTMENTS 22ND CROSS, KAGGADASAPURA C.V.RAMAN NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 093. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SANDEEP LAHIRI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY UNDER SECRETARY (RERA) HOUSING DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA SECRETARIAT ROOM NO.211, II FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . SECRETARY KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE 42 REGULATORY AUTHORITY 2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND 3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD BENGALURU – 560 027. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI GOWTHAMDEV C.ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH CIRCULAR IN TOTO IMPOSING DELAY FEE FOR DELAYED SUBMISSIONS OF QUARTERLY UPDATE AND ANNUAL AUDIT STATEMENT DTD 03.09.2020 BEARING RERA/FINANCE- SEC/83/2020-21 AS UNDER ANNEXURE-A, IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER CONCERNED ISSUED BY THE R-2 ON THE GROUNDS OF IT BEING ULTRA VIRES TO ACT. IN WRIT PETITION No.3941 OF 2024 BETWEEN: M/S. PROFOUND DEVELOPERS REGISTERED UNDER PARTNERSHIP FIRM REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY SRI S.VENKAT REDDY, OFFICE AT NO. 272 HARAGADDE VILLAGE, JIGANI HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 105. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI RAGHAVA P., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY UNDER SECRETARY (RERA) HOUSING DEPARTMENT 43 GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA SECRETARIAT ROOM NO. 211, II FLOOR VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2 . KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY AUTHORITY, 2ND FLOOR SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND 3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD BENGALURU - 560 027. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI GOWTHAMDEV C.ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH CIRCULAR IN TOTO IMPOSING DELAY FEE FOR DELAYED SUBMISSIONS OF QUARTERLY UPDATE AND ANNUAL AUDIT STATEMENT DTD SEPTEMBER 03, 2020, BEARING NO.RERA/FINANCE-SECTION/83/2020-21 AS UNDER ANNEXURE-A, ISSUED BY THE R2 ON THE GROUNDS OF IT BEING ULTRA VIRES TO ACT. IN WRIT PETITION No.4770 OF 2024 BETWEEN: M/S. V.G.PAREKH AND COMPANY A PARTNERSHIP FIRM DULY REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932, HAVING IT’S REGISTERED OFFICE AT BLDEA’S HOSPITAL ROAD, VIJAYAPUR – 586 101 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY/PARTNER, 44 MR.MAHAVEERCHAND GHEVARCHAND PAREKH. ... PETITIONER (BY SMT.POORNIMA H.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY HOUSING DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, SECRETARIAT, ROOM NO.213, II FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY NO.1/14, 2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBLEE PARK BLOCK, UNIT BUILDINGS, CST COMPOUND, 3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 027, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R-1; SRI GOWTHAMDEV C.ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE CIRCULAR DATED 3.9.2020 BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE- SECTION/83/2020-21 UNDER ANNEXURE-C ISSUED BY THE R2; SETTING ASIDE THE DELAY FEE LEVIED UPON THE PROJECT OF THE PETITIONER BEARING REGISTRATION NO. PRM/KA/RERA/1275/448/PR/180601/001844 AND REFUND THE INITIAL DEPOSIT OF PROJECT COST IF ANY, IN ACCORDANCE 45 WITH LAW VIDE ANNEXURE-G; DIRECT THE R1 TO SET FORTH CONDITIONS/PROCEDURE FOR WITHDRAWAL OF REGISTRATION OF PROJECTS HALTED IN THE STAGE OF PRE-COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION DUE TO NON-AVAILABILITY OF PRE-BOOKINGS DUE TO FORCE MAJEURE, UNDER KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE (REGULATION AND DEVELOPMENT RULES), 2017; DIRECTING THE R2 TO ACCEPT THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 26.6.2023 AT ANNEXURE-E, WITHOUT PAYMENT OF ANY DELAY FEE AS STIPULATED IN ANNEXURE-G. IN WRIT PETITION No.4775 OF 2024 BETWEEN: MR. CHANDRASHEKHAR GURAPPA DONNUR S/O LATE GURAPPA DONNUR AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS RESIDING AT NEAR MALLIKARJUN TEMPLE SHAHABAD ROAD, RAJAPURA KALABURAGI - 585 105. (AS DECEASED REP. BY HIS LEGAL HEIR) MR. SHIVARAJ DONNUR, S/O LATE MR. CHANDRASHEKHAR GURAPPA DONNUR AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS RESIDING AT NEAR MALLIKARJUN TEMPLE SHAHABAD ROAD, RAJAPURA KALABURAGI - 585 105. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SANJAY KRISHNA V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE SECRETARY HOUSING DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA SECRETARIAT 46 ROOM NO. 213, II FLOOR VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY NO.1/14, 2ND FLOOR SILVER JUBILEE PARK BLOCK UNIT BUILDINGS, CSI COMPOUND 3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD BENGALURU - 560 027 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI GOWTHAMDEV C.ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE CIRCULAR DTD 03.09.2020 BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE- SEC/83/2020-21 UNDER ANNEXURE-E BY WHICH DELAY FEE IS LEVIED ON THE PETITIONER BY THE R-2. IN WRIT PETITION No.5281 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SRI NIDHI INFRASTRUCTURES A PROPRIETARY CONCERN ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF INFRASTRUCTURE HAVING ITS BUSINESS AT 1ST FLOOR CITY GATE BUILDING KADRI MANGALURU DAKSHINA KANNADA KARNATAKA – 575 002. REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR MR. KIRAN SHETTY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS ... PETITIONER (BY SRI BALRAM R.RAO, ADVOCATE) 47 AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY HOUSING DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA SECRETARIAT ROOM NO.213, 2ND FLOOR VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY RERA THE SECRETARY 2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND 3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD BENGALURU, KARNATAKA – 560 027. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI GOWTHAMDEV C.ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALLING FOR THE RECORDS OF THE PETITIONERS CASE AND AFTER EXAMINING THE LEGALITY AND VALIDITY THEREOF BE PLEASED TO QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED COMMON CIRCULAR DATED 03/09/2020 CIRCULAR NO. RERA/FINANCE-SECTION/83/2020-21 (ANNEXURE-B) AS ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND ETC., IN WRIT PETITION No.5797 OF 2024 BETWEEN: CHENNAM RANGASWAMY S/O RANGAIAG CHENNAM AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS H-108, SRIRAM SPURTHI APARTMENTS 48 B-BLOCK, AECS LAYOUT BENGALURU – 560 037. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SANDEEP LAHIRI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY HOUSING DEPARTMENT ROOM NO.211, 2ND FLOOR VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK UNITY BUILDINGS, CSI COMPOUND 3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD BENGALURU – 560 027. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI GOWTHAMDEV C.ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE CIRCULAR BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE-SECTION/83/2020-21 DTD. 03.09.2020 ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNX-A. IN WRIT PETITION No.5802 OF 2024 BETWEEN: M/S. YASHMU PROJECTS REGISTERED BY UNDER 49 SECTION 5 OF THE REAL ESTATE NO.218, ‘B’ BLOCK MAHAVEER MARVEL APARTMENT KODI CHIKANNA HALLI BENGALURU – 560 076 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER K.VIJAYAPRASAD REDDY ... PETITIONER (BY SRI ISMAIL MUNEEB MUSBA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY HOUSING DEPARTMENT ROOM NO.211, 2ND FLOOR VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY IT SECRETARY 2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND 3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD BENGALURU – 560 027. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI GOWTHAMDEV C.ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE CIRCULAR DATED 03/09/2020 BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE- SECTION/83/2020-21 ISSUED BY THE R2 AUTHORITY PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A. 50 IN WRIT PETITION No.7291 OF 2024 BETWEEN: MRS. ESTHER CHANDY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS W/O MR. EAPEN CHANDY R/AT NO S-2, ABIDE WITH ME 1/A, 11TH CROSS KARIANNAPALYA, LINGARAJAPURA BENGALURU – 560 084. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SABASTIAN M. A., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA ROOM NO.213, 2ND FLOOR VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . THE SECRETARY KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY NO.1/14, 2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BOCK UNITY BUILDINGS, CSI COMPOUND 3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD BENGALURU – 560 027. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI GOWTHAMDEV C.ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED CIRCULAR DTD 03.09.2020 BEARING RERA/FINANCE- 51 SECTION/83/2020-21 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE AUTHORITY VIDE ANNEXURE-A. IN WRIT PETITION No.7654 OF 2024 BETWEEN: M/S. BHARATH DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED PARTNER SRI SANDEEP S. P., AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS OFFICE AT NO. 1028, 25TH MAIN 39TH CROSS, 4TH ‘T’ BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 041. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI RAGHAVA P., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY UNDER SECRETARY (RERA) HOUSING DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA SECRETARIAT ROOM NO.211, II FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . SECRETARY KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY 2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK UNITY BUILDINGS, CSI COMPOUND 3RD CROSS, MISION ROAD BENGALURU – 560 027. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI GOWTHAMDEV C.ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2) 52 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT BE PASSED AGAINST THE R-2; A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT BE PASSED QUASHING CIRCULAR IN TOTO IMPOSING DELAY FEE FOR DELAYED SUBMISSIONS OF QUARTERLY UPDATE AND ANNUAL AUDIT STATEMENT DTD SEPTEMBER 03, 2020, BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE-SECTION/83/2020-21 AS UNDER ANNEXURE-A ISSUED BY THE R-2 ON THE GROUNDS OF IT BEING ULTRA VIRES TO ACT. IN WRIT PETITION No.8583/2024 BETWEEN: M/S. KHAIN PROPERTIES A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT D.NO.13/331E, II FLOOR DEVARAJ TOWERS, COURT ROAD UDUPI – 576 101 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MR. NILESH ROLAND DAVID ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SANDEEP LAHIRI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY HOUSING DEPARTMENT ROOM NO.211, 2ND FLOOR VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY 53 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND 3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD BENGALURU – 560 027. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI I.S.DEVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE CIRCULAR BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE-SECTION/83/2020-21 DTD 3.09.2020 ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNX-A. IN WRIT PETITION No.11439 OF 2024 BETWEEN: MR. SHREENIVAS SRIRAMALU S/O MR. SRIRAMALU K., AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS SOLE PROPRIETOR OF COLISTAA INFRA TECH A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 82/3/A, RAMA KRISHNA MUTT ROAD HALASURU, BENGALURU – 560 008. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SANJAY KRISHNA V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY HOUSING DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA SECRETARIAT 54 ROOM NO.213, II FLOOR VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY NO.1/14, 2ND FLOOR SILVER JUBILEE PARK BLOCK UNIT BUILDINGS, CSI COMPOUND 3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD BENGALURU – 560 027 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI I.S.DEVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE CIRCULAR DTD 03.09.2020 BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE-SECTION/83/2020- 21 UNDER ANNX-D BY WHICH DELAY FEE IS LEVIED ON THE PETITIONER SETTING ASIDE THE DELAY FEE BEARING REG NO. PRM/KA/RERA/1251/310/PR/180319/001665 UNDER ANNX-C LEVIED BY THE R-2 ON THE PETITIONER. IN WRIT PETITION No.12202 OF 2024 BETWEEN: M/S. MANDAVI REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS A REGISTERED INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932 HAVING ITS RREGISTERED OFFICE AT 3RD FLOOR, MANDAVI TRADE CENTRE UDUPI - MANIPAL ROAD, KUNJIBETTU UDUPI – 576 102 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER MR. GLEN DIAS 55 S/O MR. JERRY VINCENT DIAS AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI G.S.VENKAT SUBBA RAO, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENTOF HOUSING GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA ROOM NO. 213, 2ND FLOOR VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001. 2 . THE SECRETARY KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY NO. 1/14, 2ND FLOOR SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND 3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD BENGALURU - 560 027. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI I.S.DEVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED CIRCULAR DTD 03.09.2020 BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE- SECTION /83/20-21 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY VIDE ANNEXURE-A. 56 IN WRIT PETITION No.12203 OF 2024 BETWEEN: M/S. MANDAVI REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS A REGISTERED INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 3RD FLOOR MANDAVI TRADE CENTRE UDUPI MANIPAL ROAD, KUNJIBETTU UDUPI – 576 102 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER MR. GLEN DIAS S/O MR. JERRY VINCENT DIAS AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI G.S.VENKAT SUBBA RAO, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA ROOM NO. 213, 2ND FLOOR VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001. 2 . THE SECRETARY KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY NO.1/14, 2ND FLOOR SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK UNITY BUILDING CSI COMPOUND 3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD BENGALURU - 560 027. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI I.S.DEVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) 57 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED CIRCULAR DATED 03/09/2020 BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE-SECTION/83/2020-21 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. IN WRIT PETITION No.12332 OF 2024 BETWEEN: M/S. CALIBER PROPERTIES A PROPRIETORY CONCERN HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.3083, PARAMAHAMSA ROAD 2ND MAIN, YADAVAGIRI MYSORE – 570 020 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI ANIL KUMAR C., S/O LATE CHOKELAL AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI G.S.VENKAT SUBBA RAO, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING GOVT. OF KARNATAKA ROOM NO. 213, 2ND FLOOR VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . THE SECRETARY KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE 58 REGULATORY AUTHORITY NO.1/14, 2ND FLOOR SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND 3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD BENGALURU – 560 027. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI I.S.DEVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED CIRCULAR DATED 03.09.2020 BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE - SECTION / 83/2020-21 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY VIDE ANNEXURE-A. IN WRIT PETITION No.13209 OF 2024 BETWEEN: MR. HAJARATALI AHAMAD PEERJADE AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS KAZI NALA, HUKKERI ROAD TALUK: HUKKERI DISTRICT: BELAGAVI – 591 309. ... PETITIONER (BY SMT. ANKITA AJAY PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY HOUSING DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA SECRETARIAT 59 ROOM NO. 213, II FLOOR VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2 . KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY NO. 1/14, 2ND FLOOR SIVER JUBILEE PARK BLOCK UNIT BUILDINGS, CSI COMPOUND 3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD BENGALURU - 560 027 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI I.S.DEVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE CIRCULAR DATED 03/09/2020 BEARING NO. SECTION/83/2020-21 UNDER ANNEXURE-C BY DELAY FEE IS LEVIED ON THE PETITIONER. IN WRIT PETITION No.13851 OF 2024 BETWEEN: M/S. COMFORT BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER MR. T.NARASIMHA MURTHY S/O THIMMAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS HAVING OFFICE AT NO.2, NORTH PARK ROAD KUMARA PARK EAST BENGALURU – 560 001. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SANJAY KRISHNA V., ADVOCATE) 60 AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY HOUSING DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA SECRETARIAT ROOM NO.213, II FLOOR VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY NO.1/14, 2ND FLOOR SILVER JUBILEE PARK BLOCK UNIT BUILDINGS, CSI COMPOUND 3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD BENGALURU – 560 027 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI I.S.DEVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE CIRCULAR DATED 03/09/2020 BEARING NO.ISSUED BY THE R2 RERA/FINANCE-SECTION/83/2020-21 UNDER ANNEXURE-F BY WHICH DELAY FEE IS LEVIED ON THE PETITIONER. IN WRIT PETITION No.14128 OF 2024 BETWEEN: ORAVIA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI R.VIVEKANANDA S/O LATE G.R.REVAIAH 61 AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.69/1 GUDIGATTANAHALLI VILLAGE SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU – 560 125 INCORPORATION DATE 29.10.2020. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SATISH K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING REP. BY ITS SECRETARY VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY REP. BY ITS SECRETARY NO.1/14, 2ND FLOOR SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK UNITY BUILDINGS, CSI COMPOUND 3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD BENGALURU – 560 027. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI I.S.DEVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED CIRCULAR DTD. 03.09.2020 BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE- SECTION/83/2020-21 PASSED BY THE R-2 (ANNX-B) AND DEALY FEES IMPOSED ON THE PETITIONER (ANNX-C) IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. 62 IN WRIT PETITION No.16477 OF 2024 BETWEEN: MR. SUSHANT GUPTA S/O MAHENDER KUMAR AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS RESIDING AT, 17/23 4TH FLOOR, CASA CAPITOL WOOD STREET, ASHOK NAGAR BENGALURU – 560 025. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SANJAY KRISHNA V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY HOUSING DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA SECRETARIAT ROOM NO. 213, II FLOOR VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001. 2 . KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY NO. 1/14, 2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE PARK BLOCK UNIT BUILDINGS, CSI COMPOUND 3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD BENGALURU - 560 027 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI I.S.DEVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE CIRCULAR 63 DATED 03.09.2020 BEARING NO.RERA/FINANCE- SECTION/83/2020-21 UNDER ANNEXURE-D BEARING REGISTRATION NUMBER PRM/KA/RERA/1251/309/PR/ 180605/001874 BY WHICH DELAY FEE IS LEVIED ON THE PETITIONER. IN WRIT PETITION No.18008 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SHETTY PATIL DEVELOPERS LLP., A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT C-2/11, OXFORD COMFORTS WANAWAD PUNE – 411 040 REP. BY AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. SHARATKUMAR BABURAO SHETTY. ... PETITIONER (BY SMT. ASMITA ABHAY DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY HOUSING DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA SECRETARIAT ROOM NO.123 II FLOOR VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY NO.1/14, 2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE PARK BLOCK UNIT BUILDINGS, CSI COMPOUND 3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD BENGALURU – 560 027 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; 64 SRI I.S.DEVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE CIRCULAR DTD. 03.09.2020 BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE-SECTION/83/2020-21 AT ANNX-D AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE DELAY FEE LEVIED BY THE R-2 IN THE WEBSITE AND PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO MAKE THE REQUIRED UPDATES. IN WRIT PETITION No.21871 OF 2024 BETWEEN: M/S. MITRA STRUCTURES REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI VISHWANATH T., S/O THIMAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.24 3RD FLOOR, LAKSHMAMMA LAYOUT 80 FEET ROAD, J.P.NAGAR 8TH PHASE, 2ND BLOCK BENGALURU – 560 076 FIRM REGISTERED ON 11-04-2014 NO.JNR/41/2014-15. ... PETITIONER (BY SMT. ASMITA ABHAY DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001. 65 2 . KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY NO.1/14, 2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK UNITY BUILDINGS, CSI COMPOUND 3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD BENGALURU – 560 027. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI GOWTHAMDEV C.ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED CIRCULAR DTD. 03.09.2020 BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE- SECTION/83/2020-21 PASSED BY THE R-2 (ANNX-B) AND DEALY FEES IMPOSED ON THE PETITIONER (ANNX-C). IN WRIT PETITION No.24692 OF 2024 BETWEEN: M/S. OCEANUS DWELLINGS PVT. LTD., A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 A COMPANY HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT PN PLAZA, NO.1090/B 18TH CROSS, 3RD SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT BENGALURU - 560102 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR. P.K.CHACKO. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SANDEEP LAHIRI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 66 HOUSING DEPARTMENT ROOM NO.211, 2ND FLOOR VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND 3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD BENGALURU – 560 027. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI GOWTHAMDEV C.ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE CIRCULAR BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE-SECTION/83/2020-21 DTD. 03.09.2020 ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNX-A. IN WRIT PETITION No.25216 OF 2024 BETWEEN: M/S. OCEANUS DWELLINGS PVT. LTD., A COMPANY HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT PN PLAZA NO.1090/B, 18TH CROSS, 3RD SECTOR HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU – 560 102 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR. P.K.CHACKO A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SANDEEP LAHIRI, ADVOCATE) 67 AND: 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY HOUSING DEPARTMENT ROOM NO.211, 2ND FLOOR VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND 3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD BENGALURU – 560 027. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI GOWTHAMDEV C.ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE CIRCULAR BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE-SECTION/83/2020-21 DATED 03.09.2020 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE A. IN WRIT PETITION No.25254 OF 2024 BETWEEN: M/S. OCEANUS DWELLINGS PVT. LTD., A COMPANY HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.1090/B, PN PLAZA 4TH FLOOR, 18TH CROSS ROAD 3RD SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT BENGALURU, KARNATAKA – 560 102 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR 68 MR. P.K.CHACKO A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SANDEEP LAHIRI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY HOUSING DEPARTMENT ROOM NO.211, 2ND FLOOR VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND 3RD CROSS MISSION ROAD BENGALURU – 560 027. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI GOWTHAMDEV C.ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE CIRCULAR BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE-SECTION/83/2020-21 DTD. 03.09.2020 ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNX-A. IN WRIT PETITION No.25323 OF 2024 BETWEEN: M/S. OCEANUS DWELLINGS PVT. LTD., A COMPANY HAVING ITS 69 REGISTERED OFFICE AT PN PLAZA NO.1090/B, 18TH CROSS ROAD 3RD SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT BENGALURU, KARNATAKA – 560 102 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR. P.K.CHACKO A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SANDEEP LAHIRI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY HOUSING DEPARTMENT ROOM NO.211, 2ND FLOOR VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND 3RD CROSS MISSION ROAD BENGALURU – 560 027. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI GOWTHAMDEV C.ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT TO QUASH THE CIRCULAR BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE- SECTION/83/2020-21 DTD 03.09.2020 ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A. 70 IN WRIT PETITION No.26531 OF 2024 BETWEEN: M/S DHIRAN INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD A PRIVATE LIMITED FIRM HAVING ITS REGISTERED NO 138, 29TH MAIN ROAD, DOLLERS COLONY BTM 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE, IGGALURU VILLAGE, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR.SURESH B S A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER COPANIES ACT, 2013 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SANDEEP LAHIRI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE SECRETARY HOUSING DEPARTMENT ROOM NO.211, 2ND FLOOR VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE RELULATORY AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND 3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD BENGALURU – 560 027. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI GOWTHAMDEV C.ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2) 71 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT, DIRECTION TO QUASH THE CIRCULAR BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE-SECTION/83/2020-21 DTD 03.09.2020 ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A. IN WRIT PETITION No.26568 OF 2024 (GM - RES), BETWEEN M/S. LORVEN STRUCTURES A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS REGISTERED NO.1073, 30TH MAIN, BSK 2ND STAGE BENGALURU – 560 070. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MR. K.KESHAVULU NAIDU A COMPANY REGISTRATION UNDER THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI SANDEEP LAHIRI, ADVOCATE) AND 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE SECRETARY HOUSING DEPARTMENT ROOM NO.211, 2ND FLOOR VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, 2ND FLOOR SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND 3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD BENGALURU – 560 027. ….RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; 72 SRI GOWTHAMDEV C.ULLAL, ADVOCATE R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTION TO QUASH THE CIRCULAR BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE-SECTION/83/2020-21 DTD 03.09.2020 ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A. IN WRIT PETITION No.26851 OF 2024 BETWEEN: M/S. AMIGO SHELTERS PRIVATE LIMITED NO.152, 2ND CROSS, SHIRDI SRINAGAR K.NARAYANAPURA ROAD A.C.POST, BENGALURU – 560 045 M.HAMZA ALI MANAGING DIRECTOR A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SANDEEP LAHIRI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE SECRETARY HOUSING DEPARTMENT ROOM NO.211, 2ND FLOOR VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY REP. BY ITS SECRETARY 2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND 3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD BENGALURU – 560 027. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; 73 SRI I.S.DEVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT TO QUASH THE CIRCULAR BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE-SEC/83/2020- 21 DTD 03.09.2020 ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXUR-A. IN WRIT PETITION No.29253 OF 2024 BETWEEN: DAYAAR INFRA BUILD PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT RS NO.1393/A-P3, Z.A.AVENUE NEAR A.M.SHAIKH HOSPITAL GANGWADI, BELGAUM – 590 016 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR. SUHIB ASIF ISUF ANKALGI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS INCORPORATED COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE REGISTRATION OF COMPANY ACT. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI UDAYA PRAKASH M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY HOUSING DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA SECRETARIAT ROOM. NO.213, 2ND FLOOR VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 01. 2 . KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY NO.1/14, 2ND FLOOR, SLIVER JUBLIEE PARK BLOCK UNITY BUILDINGS, CSI COMPOUND, 3RD CROSS MISSION ROAD, BENGALURU - 027 74 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI GOWTHAMDEV C.ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE CIRCULAR BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE- SECTION/83/2020-21 DATED 03/09/2020 ISSUED BY R-2 AT ANNEXURE-E AND /OR SET ASIDE THE DELAY FEE LEVIED ON THE PETITIONER. IN WRIT PETITION No.29405 OF 2024 BETWEEN: DAYAAR INFRA BUILD PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT RS NO.1393/A-P3 Z.A.AVENUE, NEAR A.M.SHAIKH HOSPITAL GANGWADI, BELGAUM – 590 016 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR.SUHIB ASIF ISUF ANKALGI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI UDAYA PRAKASH M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY HOUSING DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA SECRETARIAT ROOM. NO.213, 2ND FLOOR VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 01. 75 2 . KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY NO.1/14, 2ND FLOOR, SLIVER JUBLIEE PARK BLOCK UNITY BUILDINGS, CSI COMPOUND 3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD BENGALURU – 560 027 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI I.S.DEVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE CIRCULAR BEARING NO. RERA/FINANACE-SECTION/83/202-21 DATED 03/09/2020 ISSUED BY R-2 AT ANNEXURE-B AND /OR SET ASIDE THE DELAY FEE LEVIED ON THE PETITIONER. IN WRIT PETITION No.29631 OF 2024 BETWEEN: PREETI DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 899/1, MCEHS LAYOUT, SRK NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 077 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIERCTOR MR. M.RAMA RANGESHWAR REDDY. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SANJAY KRISHNA V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE SECRETARY HOUSING DEPARTMENT 76 GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA SECRETARIAT ROOM NO. 213, II FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY NO.1/14, 2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE PARK BLOCK, UNIT BUILDINGS, CSI COMPOUND 3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD BENGALURU - 560 027 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI I.S.DEVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE CIRCULAR DATED 03.09.2020 BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE- SECTION/83/2020-21 UNDER ANNEXURE-F BY WHICH DELAY FEE IS LEVIED ON THE PETITIONER AND ETC., IN WRIT PETITION No.29843 OF 2024 BETWEEN: PREETI DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 899/1 MCEHS LAYOUT, SRK NAGAR BENGALURU – 560 077 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR. M.RAMA RANGESHWAR REDDY. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SANJAY KRISHNA V., ADVOCATE) 77 AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE SECRETARY HOUSING DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA SECRETARIAT ROOM NO.213, II FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY NO.1/14, 2ND FLOOR SILVER JUBILEE PARK BLOCK UNIT BUILDINGS, CSI COMPOUND 3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD BENGALURU – 560 027 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI I.S.DEVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE CIRCULAR DATED 03.09.2020 BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE- SECTION/83/2020-21 UNDER ANNEXURE-F BY WHICH DELAY FEE IS LEVIED ON THE PETITIONER. IN WRIT PETITION No.31238 OF 2024 BETWEEN: M/S. MONARCH A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.54 BRIGADE ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001 78 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY SRI SALMAN DAWOOD S/O MR. DAWOOD MOHAMMED AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT NO.18, EDEN HALL APARTMENTS 3RD MAIN JAYAMAHAL BENGALURU – 560 046. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI G.S.VENKAT SUBBA RAO, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA ROOM NO.213, 2ND FLOOR VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001 2 . THE SECRETARY KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY NO.1/14, 2ND FLOOR SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND 3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD BENGALURU – 560 027. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI I.S.DEVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED CIRCULAR DATED 03/09/2020 BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE-SECTION/83/2020-21 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, 79 KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY VIDE ANNX-A AND ETC., IN WRIT PETITION No.31922 OF 2024 BETWEEN: M/S. SRI CHOWDESHWARI PROJECTS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 9, 1ST FLOOR, “PRITHVI JUNCTION” GOTTIGERE BANNERGHATTA ROAD BBMP WARD NO. 194, BENGALURU - 560 083 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED PERSON SRI R.CHARAN, S/O B.RAMESH BABU. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI MALLAPPA J.SHIVAYOGI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY HOUSING DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA SECRETARIAT ROOM NO. 123, II FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001. 2 . KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY NO.1/14, 2ND FLOOR SILVER JUBILEE PARK BLOCK UNIT BUILDINGS, CSI COMPOUND 3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD BENGALURU - 560 027 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; 80 SRI I.S.DEVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE CIRCULAR DTD 03.09.2020 BEARING NO. RERA/ FINANCE - SECTION /83/20- 21 AT ANNEXURE-E AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE DELAY FEE LEVIED BY THE R2 IN THE WEBSITE AND PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO MAKE THE REQUIRED UPDATED. IN WRIT PETITION No.32672 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SRI T.NARASIMHULU S/O THAMMINENI PEDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 1197 1ST FLOOR, 22ND CROSS 24TH MAIN, PARANGIPALYA 2ND SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT BENGALURU - 560 012. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SATISH K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001. 2 . KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY NO. 1/14, 2ND FLOOR 81 SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK UNITY BUILDINGS, CSI COMPOUND 3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD BENGALURU - 560 027. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI I.S.DEVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED CIRCULAR DTD. 03.09.2020 BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE- SECTION/83/2020-21 PASSED BY THE R-2 (ANNX-B) AND DEALY FEES IMPOSED ON THE PETITIONER (ANNX-C) IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. IN WRIT PETITION No.32681 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SRI T.NARASIMHULU S/O THAMMINENI PEDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.1197 1ST FLOOR, 22ND CROSS 24TH MAIN, PARANGIPALYA 2ND SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT BENGALURU – 560 012. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SATISH K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY VIKASA SOUDHA 82 BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY NO.1/14, 2ND FLOOR SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK UNITY BUILDINGS, CSI COMPOUND 3RD CROSS MISSION ROAD BENGALURU – 560 027. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI GOWTHAMDEV C.ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED CIRCULAR DTD. 03.09.2020 BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE- SECTION/83/2020-21 PASSED BY THE R-2 (ANNX-B) AND DEALY FEES IMPOSED ON THE PETITIONER (ANNX-C) IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. IN WRIT PETITION No.33637 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SBR HABITAT LLP., A COMPANY HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 24/5, SITUATED AT SEEGEHALLI VILLAGE BIDARAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK (PROJECT: SBR PRAVANIKA) REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MR. V.VENUGOPAL. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SANDEEP LAHIRI, ADVOCATE) 83 AND: 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY HOUSING DEPARTMENT ROOM NO. 211, 2ND FLOOR VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND 3RD CROSS MISSION ROAD BENGALURU – 560 027. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI GOWTHAMDEV C.ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE CIRCULAR BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE-SECTION/83/2020-21 DTD. 03.09.2020 ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNX-A. IN WRIT PETITION No.33648 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SBR GROUP A COMPANY HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 24/5 SITUATED AT SEEGEHALLI VILLAGE BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK (PROJECT NAME: SBR HORIZON) REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MR. V.VENUGOPAL ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SANDEEP LAHIRI, ADVOCATE) 84 AND: 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY HOUSING DEPARTMENT ROOM NO. 211, 2ND FLOOR VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND 3RD CROSS MISSION ROAD BENGALURU – 560 027. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI GOWTHAMDEV C.ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT TO QUASH THE CIRCULAR BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE- SECTION/83/2020-21 DTD 03.09.2020 ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNX-A. IN WRIT PETITION No.33673 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SBR HABITAT LLP., A COMPANY HAVING ITS REGISTRED OFIFCE AT 24/5 SITUATED AT SEGEHALLI VILLAGE BIDARHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK PROJECT: SBR KEERTHI 85 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR. V.VENUGOPAL. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SANDEEP LAHIRI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY HOUSING DEPARTMENT ROOM NO.211, 2ND FLOOR VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK UNITY BUILIDNG, CSI COMPOUND 3RD CROSS, MISSISON ROAD BENGALURU – 560 027. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI GOWTHAMDEV C.ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE CIRCULAR BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE-SECTION/83/2020-21 DTD. 03.09.2020 ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNX-A. IN WRIT PETITION No.33676 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SBR HABITAT LLP., A COMPANY HAVING ITS 86 REGISTERED OFFICE AT 24/5 SITUATED AT SEEGEHALLI VILLAGE BIDARAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK (PROJECT NAME: SBR TEJAS) REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MR. V.VENUGOPAL THE REGISTERED UNDER THE REAL ESTATE (REGULATION AND DEVELOPMENT) ACT, 2016 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SANDEEP LAHIRI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY HOUSING DEPARTMENT ROOM NO. 211, 2ND FLOOR VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND 3RD CROSS MISSION ROAD BENGALURU – 560 027. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI GOWTHAMDEV C.ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE CIRCULAR BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE-SECTION/83/2020-21 DTD. 03.09.2020 ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNX-A. 87 IN WRIT PETITION No.3367 OF 2025 BETWEEN: IINSPIRA SPRINGDALE PRIVATE LIMITED NO.255, 36TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN 4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR III BLOCK BENGALURU SOUTH, BENGALURU – 560 011 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR. ARAVINDA M. S., (PROJECT NAME: MANAR PURE EARTH) ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SANDEEP LAHIRI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE SECRETARY HOUSING DEPARTMENT ROOM NO.211, 2ND FLOOR VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001 2 . KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY REP. BY ITS SECRETARY 2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND 3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD BENGALURU – 560 027. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI GOWTHAMDEV C.ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE 88 CIRCULAR BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE-SECTION/83/2020-21 DTD. 03.09.2020 ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNX-A. IN WRIT PETITION No.3731 OF 2025 BETWEEN: ESTELLA PROJECTS PVT. LTD., A COMPANY HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 443,16TH CROSS, 6TH MAIN HSR LAYOUT, 6TH SECTOR BENGALURU – 560 102 (PROJECT NAME ESTELLA MAPLE SQUARE BLOCK A) REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR. SUDHAKAR AGANI AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SANDEEP LAHIRI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE SECRETARY HOUSING DEPARTMENT ROOM NO. 211, 2ND FLOOR VIKAS SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY REP. BY ITS SECRETARY 2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND 3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD BENGALURU – 560 027. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; 89 SRI GOWTHAMDEV C.ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE CIRCULAR BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE-SECTION/83/2020-21 DTD. 03.09.2020 ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNX-A. IN WRIT PETITION No.13851 OF 2025 BETWEEN: M/S. UNISHIRE SKYSCAPES LLP., A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND HAVING ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE AT NO.36, UNISHIRE SQUARE RAILWAY PARALLEL ROAD NEHRU NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 020. PRESENTLY AT NO.42, CASTLE STREET ASHOK NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 025 REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY SRI PRATIK K.MEHTA ... PETITIONER (BY SRI G.S.VENKAT SUBBA RAO, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING GOVT. OF KARNATAKA ROOM NO.213, 2ND FLOOR VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001. 2 . THE SECRETARY 90 KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY NO.1/14, 2ND FLOOR SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND 3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD BENGALURU – 560 027 REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI I.S.DEVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED CIRCULAR DTD. 03.09.2020 BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE-SECTION/83/2020-21 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY VIDE ANNX-A. IN WRIT PETITION No.15925 OF 2025 BETWEEN: PARTH CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED INCORPORATED ON 25/10/2007 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI SANJEET VIJAYKUMAR RAUT S/O VIJAYKUMAR PANDURANG RAUT AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 246 RAJANI GANDHA GARDEN APARTMENTS NO. 21, VITTAL MALYA ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SATISH K., ADVOCATE) 91 AND: 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001. 2 . KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY NO. 1/14, 2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK UNITY BUILDINGS, CSI COMPOUND 3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD BENGALURU - 560 027. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI I.S.DEVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED CIRCULAR DATED 03.09.2020 BEARING NO. RERA/ FINANCE- SECTION /83/2020-21 PASSED BY THE R2 (ANNEXURE -D) AND DEALY FEES IMPOSED ON THE PETITIONER (ANNEXURE -E) BEARING NO. PRM/KA/RERA/1251/309/PR-171019/000265. THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 23.08.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- 92 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CAV ORDER Conglomeration of writ petitions, though arising from distinct projects and differing promoters, converge upon a common grievance – the validity of a Circular dated 03-09-2020 issued by the Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Karnataka (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Authority’ for short). This Circular, in essence, mandates the levy of “delay fee” for belated submission of quarterly updates and annual audit statements, without distinction to the scale of the project, the stage of development, or the peculiar circumstances surrounding it. For the sake of convenience, the factual backdrop of writ petition Nos.4770 of 2024, 3379 of 2024 and 18662 of 2023 would be noticed, for it mirrors in substance the circumstances present in the other connected cases. 93 2. Sans details, facts germane are as follows: - IN WRIT PETITION NO.4770 OF 2024 2.1 The petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the business of development, construction and sale of residential buildings. The petitioner is planning to construct apartments under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana in the name and style of ‘Shubh Gruh’ in Sy.No.147, Plot No.102+103+139+140, Paninagar Layout, Indi Road Pass, near Royal Enfield Showroom, Bijapur-Vijayapura District. In compliance with the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) and Karnataka Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’ for short) the petitioner applied for RERA registration on 07-04-2018. The application comes to be approved on 01-06-2018 with the petitioner being termed as a promoter and was allotted a RERA registration number. The petitioner then applied for plan sanction for construction of apartment aforementioned and announced the project canvassing for pre-bookings from the general public. The petitioner then tried to source pre-bookings in order to obtain 94 commencement certificate for the project and when the things were then picking up, the nation was engulfed with COVID-19 due to which, the construction activity came to a grinding halt. It is the averment in the petition that the petitioner could not fetch even a single pre-booking for the project. 2.2. A Circular comes to be issued by the Authority on 03-09-2020. The Circular imposes ‘delay fee’ retrospectively for delayed submission of quarterly update and annual audit statement. The Circular encompasses every builder, developer or promoter to file quarterly update and annual audit statement in terms of Section 7 of the Act. The petitioner did not receive any pre-bookings for the apartment to be constructed and it has neither taken advances against the flat nor commenced any construction on the site. Commencement certificate is not obtained. It is the averment in the petition that, notwithstanding the aforesaid circumstance, late fee is imposed upon the petitioner. 2.3. The petitioner represents on 26-06-2023 seeking withdrawal of RERA registration due to non-receipt of pre-bookings 95 and non-commencement of construction activity. The petitioner also applies for cancellation of plan, as nothing commenced from the date of sanction of the plan. The petitioner is said to have pursued the requisition for withdrawal with the 2nd respondent only to be known, that in terms of the afore-mentioned Circular, only if delay fee ₹7,90,000 as on 06-01-2024 is paid, further steps would be taken towards the request of the petitioner. It is in this way, delay fee is imposed upon the petitioner. This is called in question in the subject petition. IN WRIT PETITION NO.3379 of 2024 3. The petitioner in the subject petition is an individual who has developed a project “Amogh Anagha Nivasayati” and is involved in the development and promotion of real estate projects in the State more particularly in Bangalore Urban and Rural areas. The Act, as observed hereinabove, comes into effect on 25-03-2016 and the Rules on 10-07-2017. The Circular imposing delay fee for delayed submission of quarterly update and annual audit statement comes in place. On 22-02-2022 the Bangalore International Airport Area Planning Authority issues a layout approval plan in favour of 96 the petitioner. Therefore, the project could commence only after approval of plan by the Planning Authority. But, on the ground that quarterly updates and annual statement are not filed, delay fee of ₹7,90,000/- is imposed against the petitioner as well. It is, therefore, the petitioner is before this Court in the present petition. IN WRIT PETITION NO.18662 of 2023 4. The petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in development and construction activities. A housing project under the name and style of “New Dawn” was taken up from the hands of the Authority and sanction was obtained on 4-01-2018 from the Planning Authority. The petitioner did not update the quarterly reports on the website within 15 days from the end of the quarter. Therefore, delay fee is imposed in terms of the Circular, which would be ₹10,000/- up to one month and beyond one month a delay fee of ₹20,000/- per month, irrespective of the project and irrespective of the developer. The delay fee, in the case at hand, is now imposed at ₹26,80,000/- not from the date on which the Circular comes into force but retrospectively i.e., from 4th quarter of 2018-19 for each quarter, until the 3rd quarter of 2019-20. It is 97 this that has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. 5. In all the connected cases the issue is the same. The projects are different, the partnership firms or individuals are different and amount of delay fee imposed is also different. But, the submissions on legality of imposition of delay fee, pursuant to the Circular is a common stream that runs through all these cases. 6. Heard Smt Poornima H.S. in W.P.No.4770 of 2024; Sri Raghava P in W.P.No.3379 of 2024 and Sri Sandeep Lahiri in W.P.No.18662 of 2023, learned counsels for petitioners and all other learned counsels appearing for petitioners in connected cases, Sri M Rajakumar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Gowthamdev C Ullal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. SUBMISSIONS: 7. Learned counsel Smt Poornima H. S. appearing for the petitioner in W.P.4770 of 2024 spearheads the charge. She contends that the impugned Circular is wholly without authority 98 of law. The Act undoubtedly imposes obligations on promoters, it neither envisages nor empowers the authority to levy delay fees of the kind that is now demanded. She would contend that the Circular is violative of Rules 4 and 7 of the Rules, which depict non- commencement of construction and force majeure. It is her submission that delay due to COVID-19 pandemic and consequent non-take of, of the projects were due to force majeure. The Circular applies to promoters who wish to extend registration by seeking extension of registration and not the promoters who want to withdraw registration itself on force majeure, particularly the petitioner. Rule 7 of the Rules imposes a condition that the Authority should inform the promoter about the extension or rejection and further grants power to the Authority to rectify the defects, if they fail to comply with the conditions thereunder. Section 6 of the Act mandates that no application for extension shall be rejected, unless an opportunity of hearing is granted to the applicant, especially in circumstances of force majeure. The Act does not authorize collection of heavy amounts by way of Circular. It is an unjust enrichment by the Authority, in the absence of basis of calculation of delay fee inconsistent with the Act. The learned 99 counsel projects a unique circumstance in the petition. According to the learned counsel, the Act deals with registration and extension of the project. There is no provision to withdraw the registration. She would contend that Section 6 itself recognizes the registration granted under Section 5 could be extended on an application made by the Promoter due to force majeure in such form and on payment of such fee as may be prescribed. Rule 7 speaks of modalities of extension of registration. Delay fee need not be imposed where the extension of a project is due to force majeure. She would submit that her application seeking withdrawal of registration should be considered failing which, the petitioner would be simply saddled with delay fee, which is also contrary to law. Notwithstanding the petitioners being victims of real estate crash and their inability to cope up with losses. 8. The learned counsel Sri Sandeep Lahiri appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.18662 of 2023 and Sri Raghava P., learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.3379 of 2024 in unison would vehemently contend that parameters or mode in which the Circular penalizes is not in consistent with the Act. It is 100 his submission that Section 61 of the Act imposes penalty for contravention of other provisions of the Act. Therefore, the Act indicates that the promoter shall be liable to any penalty which may extend up to 5% of the estimated costs of the real estate project. Therefore, collection of delay fee by way of a Circular is nowhere found under the Act. The Circular cannot lead to imposition of fee, not found under the Act. It is his submission that imposition of fee is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as same treatment of fee collection is imposed on promoters despite the project being of 10 apartments or 1000 apartments, this is arbitrary, ill-logical and unreasonable. Section 37 of the Act does not empower the Authority to issue a Circular imposing collection of delay fee. The Circular is indicative of the fact that delay fee would have to be taken commencing from the date of impugned Circular, but collection of fee is now being imposed retrospectively from the third quarter of 2018-19. He would submit on behalf of all the petitioners that, delay fee that is imposed by way of Circular is contrary to the Act. 101 THE RERA: 9. Per contra, the learned counsel Sri Gowthamdev C. Ullal appearing for the Authority in all these cases and learned Additional Government Advocate Sri M. Rajakumar appearing for the State would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that the Act imposes mandatory obligations on the promoters to provide quarterly updates on the K-RERA portal regarding the details of the projects and these promoters and developers or individuals who are in the business of development when they fail to submit quarterly updates on K-RERA website, the fee is collected. Therefore, it is a caution for the developers to adhere to the timeline. The petitioners have not approached the Court with clean hands, as they have to comply with the directions of the Authority issued from time to time. Since they have not complied, they are liable for action under Sections 61 and 63 of the Act or consequences that flow from the mandate of the statute. The Circular is prospective and not retrospective at all, as is contended by the petitioners. It is in compliance with Section 37 of the Act and therefore, the submissions to the contrary should not be entertained. They would seek dismissal of the petitions. 102 10. With these rival submissions ringing in the ears of the Court, one side decrying the circular as a usurpation of legislative power, the other defending it as a necessary instrument of regulation, the matter now requires determination. In furtherance whereof, the issue that falls for consideration is: “Whether the Circular indeed traces its authority to the parent statute or whether it strays into the forbidden field of ultra-vires action?” CONSIDERATION: 11. To resolve the kernel in the conundrum, it becomes imperative first to turn to the statute itself. The Act in unmistakable terms delineates, the powers conferred upon the Authority and the obligations cast upon the promoter or any person registered under the Act. It becomes germane to notice those provisions of the Act and the Rules. 103 THE ACT: 11.1. First let me notice the Act and consider the sections that are relevant. Sections 4, 5, 6, 11, 34, 37, 61, 63 of the Act read as follows: “4. Application for registration of real estate projects.—(1) Every promoter shall make an application to the Authority for registration of the real estate project in such form, manner, within such time and accompanied by such fee as may be 3[prescribed]. (2) The promoter shall enclose the following documents along with the application referred to in sub-section (1), namely— (a) a brief details of his enterprise including its name, registered address, type of enterprise (proprietorship, societies, partnership, companies, competent authority), and the particulars of registration, and the names and photographs of the promoter; (b) a brief detail of the projects launched by him, in the past five years, whether already completed or being developed, as the case may be, including the current status of the said projects, any delay in its completion, details of cases pending, details of type of land and payments pending; (c) an authenticated copy of the approvals and commencement certificate from the competent authority obtained in accordance with the laws as may be applicable for the real estate project mentioned in the application, and where the project is proposed to be developed in phases, an authenticated copy of the approvals and 104 commencement certificate from the competent authority for each of such phases; (d) the sanctioned plan, layout plan and specifications of the proposed project or the phase thereof, and the whole project as sanctioned by the competent authority; (e) the plan of development works to be executed in the proposed project and the proposed facilities to be provided thereof including fire fighting facilities, drinking water facilities, emergency evacuation services, use of renewable energy; (f) the location details of the project, with clear demarcation of land dedicated for the project along with its boundaries including the latitude and longitude of the end points of the project; (g) pro forma of the allotment letter, agreement for sale, and the conveyance deed proposed to be signed with the allottees; (h) the number, type and the carpet area of apartments for sale in the project along with the area of the exclusive balcony or verandah areas and the exclusive open terrace areas appurtenant with the apartment, if any; (i) the number and area of garage for sale in the project; (j) the names and addresses of his real estate agents, if any, for the proposed project; (k) the names and addresses of the contractors, architect, structural engineer, if any and other persons concerned with the development of the proposed project; 105 (l) a declaration, supported by an affidavit, which shall be signed by the promoter or any person authorised by the promoter, stating,— (A) that he has a legal title to the land on which the development is proposed along with legally valid documents with authentication of such title, if such land is owned by another person; (B) that the land is free from all encumbrances, or as the case may be details of the encumbrances on such land including any rights, title, interest or name of any party in or over such land along with details; (C) the time period within which he undertakes to complete the project or phase thereof, as the case may be; (D) that seventy per cent of the amounts realised for the real estate project from the allottees, from time to time, shall be deposited in a separate account to be maintained in a scheduled bank to cover the cost of construction and the land cost and shall be used only for that purpose: Provided that the promoter shall withdraw the amounts from the separate account, to cover the cost of the project, in proportion to the percentage of completion of the project: Provided further that the amounts from the separate account shall be withdrawn by the promoter after it is certified by an engineer, an architect and a chartered accountant in practice that the withdrawal is in proportion to the percentage of completion of the project: Provided also that the promoter shall get his accounts audited within six months after the end of every financial year by a chartered 106 accountant in practice, and shall produce a statement of accounts duly certified and signed by such chartered accountant and it shall be verified during the audit that the amounts collected for a particular project have been utilised for that project and the withdrawal has been in compliance with the proportion to the percentage of completion of the project. Explanation.—For the purpose of this clause, the term “scheduled bank” means a bank included in the Second Schedule to the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (2 of 1934); (E) that he shall take all the pending approvals on time, from the competent authorities; (F) that he has furnished such other documents as may be prescribed by the rules or regulations made under this Act; and (m) such other information and documents as may be prescribed. (3) The Authority shall operationalise a web based online system for submitting applications for registration of projects within a period of one year from the date of its establishment. 5. Grant of registration.—(1) On receipt of the application under sub-section (1) of Section 4, the Authority shall within a period of thirty days— (a) grant registration subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules and regulations made thereunder, and provide a registration number, including a Login Id and password to the applicant for accessing the website of the Authority and to create his web page and to fill therein the details of the proposed project; or 107 (b) reject the application for reasons to be recorded in writing, if such application does not conform to the provisions of this Act or the rules or regulations made thereunder: Provided that no application shall be rejected unless the applicant has been given an opportunity of being heard in the matter. (2) If the Authority fails to grant the registration or reject the application, as the case may be, as provided under sub-section (1), the project shall be deemed to have been registered, and the Authority shall within a period of seven days of the expiry of the said period of thirty days specified under sub-section (1), provide a registration number and a Login Id and password to the promoter for accessing the website of the Authority and to create his web page and to fill therein the details of the proposed project. (3) The registration granted under this section shall be valid for a period declared by the promoter under sub-clause (C) of clause (l) of sub-section (2) of Section 4 for completion of the project or phase thereof, as the case may be. 6. Extension of registration.—The registration granted under Section 5 may be extended by the Authority on an application made by the promoter, due to force majeure, in such form and on payment of such fee as may be prescribed: Provided that the Authority may in reasonable circumstances, without default on the part of the promoter, based on the facts of each case, and for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend the registration granted to a project for such time as it considers necessary, which shall, in aggregate, not exceed a period of one year: Provided further that no application for extension of registration shall be rejected unless the applicant has been given an opportunity of being heard in the matter. 108 Explanation.—For the purpose of this section, the expression “force majeure” shall mean a case of war, flood, drought, fire, cyclone, earthquake or any other calamity caused by nature affecting the regular development of the real estate project. … … … 11. Function and duties of promoter.—(1) The promoter shall, upon receiving his Login Id and password under clause (a) of sub-section (1) or under sub-section (2) of Section 5, as the case may be, create his web page on the website of the Authority and enter all details of the proposed project as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 4, in all the fields as provided, for public viewing, including— (a) details of the registration granted by the Authority; (b) quarterly up-to-date the list of number and types of apartments or plots, as the case may be, booked; (c) quarterly up-to-date the list of number of garages booked; (d) quarterly up-to-date the list of approvals taken and the approvals which are pending subsequent to commencement certificate; (e) quarterly up-to-date status of the project; and (f) such other information and documents as may be specified by the regulations made by the Authority. (2) The advertisement or prospectus issued or published by the promoter shall mention prominently the website address of the Authority, wherein all details of the registered project have been entered and include the registration number obtained from the Authority and such other matters incidental thereto. (3) The promoter at the time of the booking and issue of allotment letter shall be responsible to make available to the allottee, the following information, namely:— 109 (a) sanctioned plans, layout plans, along with specifications, approved by the competent authority, by display at the site or such other place as may be specified by the regulations made by the Authority; (b) the stagewise time schedule of completion of the project, including the provisions for civic infrastructure like water, sanitation and electricity. (4) The promoter shall— (a) be responsible for all obligations, responsibilities and functions under the provisions of this Act or the rules and regulations made thereunder or to the allottees as per the agreement for sale, or to the association of allottees, as the case may be, till the conveyance of all the apartments, plots or buildings, as the case may be, to the allottees, or the common areas to the association of allottees or the competent authority, as the case may be: Provided that the responsibility of the promoter, with respect to the structural defect or any other defect for such period as is referred to in sub-section (3) of Section 14, shall continue even after the conveyance deed of all the apartments, plots or buildings, as the case may be, to the allottees are executed. (b) be responsible to obtain the completion certificate or the occupancy certificate, or both, as applicable, from the relevant competent authority as per local laws or other laws for the time being in force and to make it available to the allottees individually or to the association of allottees, as the case may be; (c) be responsible to obtain the lease certificate, where the real estate project is developed on a leasehold land, specifying the period of lease, and certifying that all dues and charges in regard to the leasehold land has been paid, and to make the lease certificate available to the association of allottees; (d) be responsible for providing and maintaining the essential services, on reasonable charges, till the taking over of the 110 maintenance of the project by the association of the allottees; (e) enable the formation of an association or society or cooperative society, as the case may be, of the allottees, or a federation of the same, under the laws applicable: Provided that in the absence of local laws, the association of allottees, by whatever name called, shall be formed within a period of three months of the majority of allottees having booked their plot or apartment or building, as the case may be, in the project; (f) execute a registered conveyance deed of the apartment, plot or building, as the case may be, in favour of the allottee along with the undivided proportionate title in the common areas to the association of allottees or competent authority, as the case may be, as provided under Section 17 of this Act; (g) pay all outgoings until he transfers the physical possession of the real estate project to the allottee or the associations of allottees, as the case may be, which he has collected from the allottees, for the payment of outgoings (including land cost, ground rent, municipal or other local taxes, charges for water or electricity, maintenance charges, including mortgage loan and interest on mortgages or other encumbrances and such other liabilities payable to competent authorities, banks and financial institutions, which are related to the project): Provided that where any promoter fails to pay all or any of the outgoings collected by him from the allottees or any liability, mortgage loan and interest thereon before transferring the real estate project to such allottees, or the association of the allottees, as the case may be, the promoter shall continue to be liable, even after the transfer of the property, to pay such outgoings and penal charges, if any, to the authority or person to whom they are payable and be liable for the cost of any legal proceedings which may be taken therefor by such authority or person; 111 (h) after he executes an agreement for sale for any apartment, plot or building, as the case may be, not mortgage or create a charge on such apartment, plot or building, as the case may be, and if any such mortgage or charge is made or created then notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, it shall not affect the right and interest of the allottee who has taken or agreed to take such apartment, plot or building, as the case may be. (5) The promoter may cancel the allotment only in terms of the agreement for sale: Provided that the allottee may approach the Authority for relief, if he is aggrieved by such cancellation and such cancellation is not in accordance with the terms of the agreement for sale, unilateral and without any sufficient cause. (6) The promoter shall prepare and maintain all such other details as may be specified, from time to time, by regulations made by the Authority. … … … 34. Functions of Authority.—The functions of the Authority shall include— (a) to register and regulate real estate projects and real estate agents registered under this Act; (b) to publish and maintain a website of records, for public viewing, of all real estate projects for which registration has been given, with such details as may be prescribed, including information provided in the application for which registration has been granted; (c) to maintain a database, on its website, for public viewing, and enter the names and photographs of promoters as defaulters including the project details, registration for which has been revoked or have been penalised under this Act, with reasons therefor, for access to the general public; 112 (d) to maintain a database, on its website, for public viewing, and enter the names and photographs of real estate agents who have applied and registered under this Act, with such details as may be prescribed, including those whose registration has been rejected or revoked; (e) to fix through regulations for each areas under its jurisdiction the standard fees to be levied on the allottees or the promoter or the real estate agent, as the case may be; (f) to ensure compliance of the obligations cast upon the promoters, the allottees and the real estate agents under this Act and the rules and regulations made thereunder; (g) to ensure compliance of its regulations or orders or directions made in exercise of its powers under this Act; (h) to perform such other functions as may be entrusted to the Authority by the appropriate Government as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act. … … … 37. Powers of Authority to issue directions.—The authority may, for the purpose of discharging its functions under the provisions of this Act or rules or regulations made thereunder, issue such directions from time to time, to the promoters or allottees or real estate agents, as the case may be, as it may consider necessary and such directions shall be binding on all concerned. … … … 61. Penalty for contravention of other provisions of this Act.—If any promoter contravenes any other provisions of this Act, other than that provided under Section 3 or Section 4, or the rules or regulations made thereunder, he shall be liable to a penalty which may extend up to five per cent of the estimated cost of the real estate project as determined by the Authority. … … … 63. Penalty for failure to comply with orders of Authority by promoter.—If any promoter, who fails to 113 comply with, or contravenes any of the orders or directions of the Authority, he shall be liable to a penalty for everyday during which such default continues, which may cumulatively extend up to five per cent, of the estimated cost of the real estate project as determined by the Authority.” (Emphasis supplied) Section 4 of the Act prescribes the requirements for registration of the projects, including disclosure of sanction plans, layouts and schedule of completion. Section 5 of the Act deals with grant of registration. The registration is granted in all these cases. Section 6 deals with extension of registration. A registration granted under Section 5 may be extended by the Authority under Section 6 on an application of the promoter, in such form and on payment of such fee, as may be prescribed. The extension indicates that force majeure would mean war, flood, drought, fire, or any other calamity caused by nature affecting regular development of a real estate project. Section 11 obliges every promoter to furnish quarterly updates on project status together with annual reports. Sections 34 and 35 empower the Authority to call for information and to ensure compliance with the obligation. There are several functions of the Authority empowering it towards completion of 114 projects. Section 37 deals with powers of the Authority to issue directions. The Authority for the purpose of discharging its functions under the Act or the Rules is empowered to issue directions from time to time to the promoters, allottees and real estate agents as the case would be. Section 61 deals with penalty for contravention of other provisions of the Act. If any promoter would contravene any other provisions of the Act other than what is provided under Sections 3 or 4, shall be liable to a penalty which may extend up to 5% of the estimated cost of real estate project as determined by the Authority. Section 63 deals with penalty for failure to comply with orders of the Authority by the promoter. The entire fulcrum of the lis revolves round the afore-quoted provisions, particularly of Sections 37, 61 and 63 of the Act. THE RULES: 11.2. In exercise of powers conferred under the Act, the Rules are promulgated. Certain Rule, that are germane, are necessary to be noticed. Rule 7 which deals with extension of registration of the project and reads as follows: 115 “7. Extension of registration of project.— (1) The registration granted under the Act, may be extended by the Authority, on an application made by the promoter in Form ‘T’, in triplicate, until the application procedure is made web based, within three months prior to the expiry of the registration granted. (2) The application for extension of registration shall be accompanied with a demand draft or a bankers cheque drawn on any scheduled bank or Co-operative Bank through online payment mode, as the case may be, for an amount equivalent to half the registration fees as prescribed under sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 along with an explanatory note setting out the reasons for delay in the completion of the project and the need for extension of registration for the project, along with documents supporting such reasons: Provided that where the promoter applies for extension of registration of the project due to force majeure he shall not be liable to pay any fee. (3) The extension of registration of the project shall not be beyond the period specified under concerned State Acts for completion of the project or phase thereof, as the case may be. (4) In case of extension of registration, the Authority shall inform the promoter about such extension in Form ‘F’ and in case of rejection of the application for extension of registration the Authority shall inform the promoter about such rejection in Form ‘D’: Provided that the Authority may grant an opportunity to the promoter to rectify the defects in the application within such time period as may be specified by it.” (Emphasis supplied) What is striking, however, is that while the Act lays down the duties of promoters with precision, it nowhere contemplates the imposition 116 of “delay fee” in the event of non-compliance. The only consequence spelt out in the Act are those of penalty or interest in terms of the provisions quoted hereinabove. The Rules follow suit. It nowhere speaks of imposition of any delay fee. 12. Notwithstanding the same, in the teeth of the absence of power, the Authority notifies a Circular. Therefore, it becomes necessary to notice the Circular, The Circular reads as follows: “No.RERA/Finance-Section/83/2020-21 Date: 03.09.2020 CIRCULAR Sub: Imposing delay fee for delayed submission of quarterly update and Annual Audit Statement. ***** Whereas, Section 11 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 and Rule 15(D) of Karnataka Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 mandates the promoter to perform certain functions as required under the Act. One of the mandatory requirements is to Quarterly Updates on the RERA Authority website. Promoters of Registered projects shall be upload the necessary details as per under Section 11(1), Rule 15(D) and as prescribed, including reporting compliance as required Section 4(2)(1)(D) on Authority website. Accordingly, Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority has enabled the facility on its website for online filing of Quarterly Updates and Annual Audit for the registered projects. Under Section 37 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 the Karnataka Real Estate 117 Regulatory Authority is vested with the power to issue directions for the purpose of discharging its functions under the provisions of this Act or Rules or Regulations made thereunder, issue such directions from time to time, to the Promoters or Allottees or Real Estate Agents, as the case may be, as it may consider necessary and such directions shall be binding on all concerned. The Authority has been that, many of the Promoters are not filing the Post Registration, Quarterly updates and Annual Audit on the website of the Authority, within the prescribed time in accordance with Rules 15(D) and Section 4(2)(1)(D). Hence, it is decided by the Authority to levy the delay filing fees for non-compliance of provisions of the Act/Rules. Hence, this circular. The delay fees payable by the promoters of the project for the Quarterly Updates on the website of the Authority shall be as follows: Sl. No. Due date as per K-RERA Rule Delay Delay Fees per project Upto 1 month from the due date ₹10,000 1 15th days from the end of the Quarter. Beyond 1 month ₹20,000 per month of delay The delay fees shall be effective commencing from the date of this circular and the promoters shall remit the fees through RERA E-Payment at the time of filing of the Quarterly Updates as enabled by the Authority on the website. (Approved by the Authority) Sd/- Secretary, Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority.” (Emphasis added) 118 The Circular refers to Section 11 of the Act and Rule 15 of the Rules which mandate the promoter to perform certain functions as required under the Act. It further refers to Section 37 vesting certain powers to issue certain directions towards discharge of functions by the promoters. The Authority has observed that promoters are not filing post registration quarterly updates and annual audit on the website within time. Therefore, it has decided to impose delay fee. None of the provisions quoted therein empower the Authority to impose a fee. A perusal at the Circular does not indicate any source of power for imposition of a fee, and does not have the method of calculation, of fee as well. Therefore, the Circular apart from it being issued at its whim, does not trace its power to the Act. 13. It is trite that imposition of tax, fee or any other impost upon any person, cannot be by way of Circular. It is therefore manifest that the Act and the Rules have not clothed the Authority with power to levy or recover fees beyond those expressly authorised. In the absence of such express conferment, no Circular, however well intentioned, can conjure into 119 existence a financial liability against the promoters. This principle is neither novel nor chartered. Jurisprudence is replete with the Apex Court and other High Courts considering that no tax, fee or impost can be foisted upon a citizen, except by clear authority of statute. The Courts have struck down such actions that would seek to transgress this settled boundary. I therefore, deem it appropriate to notice the said position of law. POSITION IN LAW: 14. Article 265 of the Constitution is the source of power for the Union and the States to impose taxes in accordance with law. Article 265 of the Constitution of India reads as follows: “265. Taxes not to be imposed save by authority of law.- No tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law.” Therefore, an impost can be made only in accordance with or and as authorized by law. 120 15. Tax or a fee has been a subject matter of interpretation by the Apex Court in several judgments considering several facets of such imposts. I deem it appropriate to notice a few: (i) COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS, v. SRI LAKSHMINDRA THIRTHA SWAMIAR OF SRISHIRUR MUTT1: “…. …. …. 44. A neat definition of what “tax” means has been given by Latham, C.J. of the High Court of Australia in Matthews v. Chicory Marketing Board [60 CLR 263, 276]. “A tax”, according to the learned Chief Justice, “is a compulsory exaction of money by public authority for public purposes enforceable by law and is not payment for services rendered”. This definition brings out, in our opinion, the essential characteristics of a tax as distinguished from other forms of imposition which, in a general sense, are included within it. It is said that the essence of taxation is compulsion, that is to say, it is imposed under statutory power without the taxpayer's consent and the payment is enforced by law [Vide Lower Mainland Dairy v. Crystal Dairy Ltd. , [1933] A.C. 168]. The second characteristic of tax is that it is an imposition made for public purpose without reference to any special benefit to be conferred on the payer of the tax. This is expressed by saying that the levy of tax is for the purposes of general revenue, which when collected forms part of the public revenues of the State. As the object of a tax is not to confer any special benefit upon any particular individual, there is, as it is said, no element of quid pro quo between the taxpayer and the public authority [See Findlay Shirras on Science of Public Finance, Vol. I, p. 203]. Another feature of the taxation is that as it is a part of the 1 1954 SCC OnLine SC 67 121 common burden, the quantum of imposition upon the taxpayer depends generally upon his capacity to pay- 45. Coming now to fees, a “fee” is generally defined to be a charge for a special service rendered to individuals by some governmental agency. The amount of fee levied is supposed to be based on the expenses incurred by the Government in rendering the service, though in many cases the costs are arbitrarily assessed. Ordinarily, the fees are uniform and no account is taken of the varying abilities of different recipients to pay [Vide Lutz on Public Finance, p. 215]. These are undoubtedly some of the general characteristics, but as there may be various kinds of fees, it is not possible to formulate a definition that would be applicable to all cases. 46. As regards the distinction between a tax and a fee, it is argued in the first place on behalf of the respondent that a fee is something voluntary which a person has got to pay if he wants certain services from the Government; but there is no obligation on his part to seek such services and if he does not want the services, he can avoid the obligation. The example given is of a licence fee. If a man wants a licence that is entirely his own choice and then only he has to pay the fees, but not otherwise. We think that a careful examination will reveal that the element of compulsion or coerciveness is present in all kinds of imposition, though in different degrees and that it is not totally absent in fees. This, therefore, cannot be made the sole or even a material criterion for distinguishing a tax from fees. It is difficult, we think, to conceive of a tax except, it be something like a poll tax, the incidence of which falls on all persons within a State. The house tax has to be paid only by those who own houses, the land tax by those who possess lands, municipal taxes or rates will fall on those who have properties within a municipality. Persons, who do not have houses, lands or properties within municipalities, would not have to pay these taxes, but nevertheless these impositions come within the category of taxes and nobody can say that it is the choice of these people to own lands or houses or specified kinds of properties, so that there is no compulsion on them to pay taxes at all. 122 Compulsion lies in the fact that payment is enforceable by law against a man in spite of his unwillingness or want of consent; and this element is present in taxes as well as in fees. Of course, in some cases whether a man would come within the category of a service receiver may be a matter of his choice, but that by itself would not constitute a major test which can be taken as the criterion of this species of imposition. The distinction between a tax and a fee lies primarily in the fact that a tax is levied as a part of a common burden, while a fee is a payment for a special benefit or privilege. Fees confer a special capacity, although the special advantage, as for example in the case of registration fees for documents or marriage licences, is secondary to the primary motive of regulation in the public interest [Vide Findlay Shirras on Science of Public Finance, Vol. I, p. 202]. Public interest seems to be at the basis of all impositions, but in a fee it is some special benefit which the individual receives. As Seligman says, it is the special benefit accruing to the individual which is the reason for payment in the case of fees; in the case of a tax, the particular advantage if it exists at all is an incidental result of State action [Vide Seligman's Essays on Taxation, p.408]” (Emphasis Supplied) The Apex Court has clearly indicated what are the characteristics of a fee distinguishing it from what could be tax. What is held by the Apex Court is that a fee is generally a charge for special service rendered to individuals by Governmental agencies, which is to be uniform, without reference to the capacity of the payer. (ii) CORPORATION OF CALCUTTA v. LIBERTY CINEMA2: “…. …. …. 2 1964 SCC OnLine SC 65 123 20. The conclusion to which we then arrive is that the levy under Section 548 is not a fee as the Act does not provide for any services of special kind being rendered resulting in benefits to the person on whom it is imposed. The work of inspection done by the Corporation which is only to see that the terms of the licence are observed by the licensee is not a service to him. No question hew arises of correlating the amount of the levy to the costs of any service. The levy is a tax. It is not disputed, it may be stated, that if the levy is not a fee, it must be a tax. (Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court in the afore-extracted judgment holds that unless any service of a special kind is rendered resulting in benefits to the person on whom it is imposed, the levy would not be a fee, but a tax. (iii) NAGAR MAHAPALIKA v. DURGA DAS BHATTACHARYA3: “…. …. …. 10. We pass on to consider the next question raised in this appeal, namely, whether there was a quid pro quo for the licence fees realised by the appellant and whether the impost was a fee in the strict sense as contemplated by Section 294 of the Act. A finding has been recorded in the present case by the trial court that a sum of T 1,43,741/710 was spent by the Municipal Board for providing facilities and amenities to owners and drivers of rickshaws. This sum of f 1,43,741/7/0 is made up of the following items: “Rs. 68,000 spent over the paving of bye-lanes, in these the only conveyance that can operate is a rickshaw. 3 1968 SCC OnLine SC 228 124 Rs. 20,000 spent as expenses for lighting of streets and lanes. Rs. 47,741/7/0 spent in making provision for parking grounds. Rs. 8000 spent on payment of salary to the staff maintained for issuing licences and inspecting rickshaws”. The High Court was of the opinion that the amount of Rs. 68,000 spent for paving of bye-lanes and Rs. 20,000 for lighting of streets and lanes cannot be considered to have been spent in rendering services to the rickshaw owners and rickshaw drivers. The reason was that under Section 7(a) of the Act it was the statutory duty of the Municipal Board to light public streets and places and under clause (h) of the same section to construct and maintain public streets, culverts etc. The expenditure under these two items was incurred by the Municipal Board in the discharge of its statutory duty and it is manifest that the licence fee cannot be imposed for reimbursing the cost of ordinary municipal services which the Municipal Board was bound under the statute to provide to the general public (See the decision of the Madras High Court in India Sugar and Refineries Ltd. v. Municipal Council Hospet ) [ILR 1943 Mad 521]. If these two items are excluded from consideration the balance of expenditure incurred by the Municipal Board for the benefit of the licensees is Rs. 55,741/7/0. In other words, the expenditure constituted about 44% of the total income of the Municipal Board from the licensees. In our opinion, there is no sufficient quid pro quo established in the circumstances of this case and the High Court was therefore right in holding that the imposition of the licence fees at the rate of Rs. 30 on each rickshaw owner and Rs. 5 on each rickshaw driver was ultra vires and illegal. (Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court, in the aforesaid case, holds that if there is no sufficient quid pro quo established, imposition of fees would become illegal. 125 (iv) DELHI RACE CLUB LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA4: “35. In the light of the tests laid down in Hingir-Rampur [AIR 1961 SC 459: (1961) 2 SCR 537] and followed in Kesoram Industries [(2004) 10 SCC 201], it is manifest that the true test to determine the character of a levy, delineating “tax” from “fee”, is the primary object of the levy and the essential purpose intended to be achieved. In the instant case, it is plain from the scheme of the Act that its sole aim is regulation, control and management of horse racing. Such a regulation is necessary in public interest to control the act of betting and wagering as well as to promote the sport in the Indian context. To achieve this purpose, licences are issued subject to compliance with the conditions laid down therein, which inter alia include maintenance of accounts and furnishing of periodical returns; amount of stakes which may be allotted for different kinds of horses; the measures to be taken for the training of the persons to become jockeys, to encourage Indian- bred horses and Indian jockeys; the inclusion and association of such persons as the Government may nominate as stewards or members in the conduct and management of the horse racing. The violation of the conditions of the licence or the Act is penalised under the Act besides a provision for cognizance by a court not inferior to a Metropolitan Magistrate. To ensure compliance with these conditions, the 1985 Rules empower the District Officer or an Entertainment Tax Officer to conduct inspection of the race club at reasonable times. Thus, the nature of the impost is not merely compulsory exaction of money to augment the revenue of the State but its true object is to regulate, control, manage and encourage the sport of horse racing as is distinctly spelled out in the Act and the 1985 Rules. For the purpose of enforcement, wide powers are conferred on various authorities to enable them to supervise, regulate and monitor the activities relating to the racecourse with a view to secure proper enforcement of the provisions. Therefore, by applying the principles laid down in the aforesaid decisions, it is clear that the said levy is a “fee” and not a “tax”.” (Emphasis supplied) 4 (2012) 8 SCC 680 126 The Apex Court, in the afore-said case, has again elaborated as to what is a tax and a fee. By considering the services rendered by the Race Club, the Apex Court holds it to be a fee and not a tax. (v) JINDAL STAINLESS LTD. v. STATE OF HARYANA5: “…. …. …. 67.2. Secondly, because the concept of compensatory tax obliterates the distinction between a tax and a fee. The essential difference between a tax and a fee is that while a tax has no element of quid pro quo, a fee without that element cannot be validly levied. The difference between a tax and the fee has been examined and elaborated in a long line of decisions of this Court. (See Commr., Hindu Religious Endowments v. Sri LakshmindraThirthaSwamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt [ Commr., Hindu Religious Endowments v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri ShirurMutt , AIR 1954 SC 282 : 1954 SCR 1005] Jagannath Ramanuj Das v. State of Orissa [ Jagannath Ramanuj Das v. State of Orissa , AIR 1954 SC 400], Hingir-Rampur Coal Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa [ Hingir-Rampur Coal Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa , AIR 1961 SC 459], Corpn. of Calcutta v. Liberty Cinema [ Corpn. of Calcutta v. Liberty Cinema , AIR 1965 SC 1107] Kewal Krishan Puri v. State of Punjab [ Kewal Krishan Puri v. State of Punjab , (1980) 1 SCC 416], Krishi UpajMandi Samiti v. Orient Paper and Industries Ltd. [ Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti v. Orient Paper and Industries Ltd. , (1995) 1 SCC 655],State of Gujarat v. Akhil Gujarat Pravasi V.S. Mahamandal [ State of Gujarat v. Akhil Gujarat Pravasi V.S. Mahamandal , (2004) 5 SCC 155] and State of W.B. v. Kesoram Industries Ltd. [ State of 5 (2017) 12 SCC 1 127 W.B. v. Kesoram Industries Ltd. , (2004) 10 SCC 201 : AIR 2005 SC 1646])”. (Emphasis supplied) A Nine Judge Bench of the Apex Court, in JINDAL STAINLESS LTD supra, while considering the difference between a tax and a fee, holds that element of quid pro quo is essential for an impost to be considered a fee. POWER TO DEMAND FEES: (vi) AHMEDABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. SHARADKUMAR JAYANTIKUMAR PASAWALLA6: “…. …. …. 7. After giving our anxious consideration to the contentions raised by Mr. Goswami, it appears to us that in a fiscal matter it will not be proper to hold that even in the absence of express provision, a delegated authority can impose tax or fee. In our view, such power of imposition of tax and/or fee by delegated authority must be very specific and there is no scope of implied authority for imposition of such tax or fee. It appears to us that the delegated authority must act strictly within the parameters of the authority delegated to it under the Act and it will not be proper to bring the theory of implied intent or the concept of incidental and ancillary power in the matter of exercise of fiscal power. The facts and circumstances in the case of District Council of Jowai are entirely different. The exercise of powers by the Autonomous Jaintia 6 (1992) 3 SCC 285 128 Hills Districts are controlled by the constitutional provisions and in the special facts of the case, this Court has indicated that the realisation of just fee for a specific purpose by the autonomous District was justified and such power was implied. The said decision cannot be made applicable in the facts of this case or the same should not be held to have laid down any legal proposition that in matters of imposition of tax or fees, the question of necessary intendment may be looked into when there is no express provision for imposition of fee or tax. The other decision in Khargram Panchayat Samiti case [(1987) 3 SCC 82] also deals with the exercise of incidental and consequential power in the field of administrative law and the same does not deal with the power of imposing tax and fee.” 8. The High Court has referred to the decisions of this Court in Hingir case [AIR 1961 SC 459 : (1961) 2 SCR 537] and Jagannath Ramanuj case [AIR 1954 SC 400 : 1954 SCR 1046] and Delhi Municipal Corporation case [(1983) 3 SCC 229 : 1983 SCC (Tax) 154 : AIR 1983 SC 617]. It has been consistently held by this Court that whenever there is compulsory exaction of any money, there should be specific provision for the same and there is no room for intendment. Nothing is to be read and nothing is to be implied and one should look fairly to the language used. We are, therefore, unable to accept the contention of Mr. Goswami. Accordingly, there is no occasion to interfere with the impugned decision of the High Court. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. (Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court, in the afore-said judgment, has considered manifold circumstances which would distinguish a tax from a fee and has also held that there can be no implied power in fiscal matters. The power to impose must be specific and such imposition must be within the parameters of the Authority to impose. There 129 cannot be incidental or ancillary power in the matter of exercise of fiscal power. (vii) CALCUTTA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION v. SHREY MERCANTILE (P) LTD7: “The short question which arises for determination in these civil appeals by grant of special leave by the Calcutta Municipal whether the imposition for the process of change in the name of the owner in the assessment books of the Corporation is in the nature of “a fee” or “tax”. …. …. …. 17. These well-settled principles have been reiterated by this Court in the case of CCE v. Chhata Sugar Co. Ltd. [(2004) 3 SCC 466] in which it has been held : (SCC pp. 483-86, paras 18-30). “18. The Constitution of India postulates either a tax ora fee. However, the use of the expression ‘tax’ or ‘fee’ in a statute is not decisive; as on a proper construction thereof and having regard to its scope and purport, ‘fee’ may also be held to be a tax. xxxxxx 25. In Liberty Cinema [(1965) 2 SCR 477 : AIR 1965 SC 1107] this Court, while interpreting Section 548 of the Calcutta Municipal Act providing for grant of a licence, observed : (AIR p. 1116, para 18) ‘The reference to the heading of Part V can at most indicate that the provisions in it were for conferring benefit on the public at large. The cinema house owners paying the levy would not as such owners be getting that benefit. We are not concerned with the benefit, if any, received by them as members of the public for that is not special benefit meant for them. We are clear in our mind that if 7 (2005) 4 SCC 245 130 looking at the terms of the provision authorising the levy, it appears that it is not for special services rendered to the person on whom the levy is imposed, it cannot be a fee wherever it may be placed in the statute. A consideration of where Sections 443 and 548 are placed in the Act is irrelevant for determining whether the levy imposed by them is a fee or a tax. It was further observed : (AIR p.1116, paras 19-20) 19. xxxxxx 20. The conclusion to which we then arrive is that the levy under Section 548 is not a fee as the Act does not provide for any services of special kind being rendered resulting in benefits to the person on whom it is imposed. The work of inspection done by the Corporation which is only to see that the terms of the licence are observed by the licensee is not a service to him. No question here arises of correlating the amount of the levy to the costs of any service. The levy is a tax. It is not disputed, it may be stated, that if the levy is not a fee, it must be a tax.’ xxxxxx 26. A regulatory statute may also contain taxing provisions. 27. The decisions of this Court point out towards the need of existence of the element of quid pro quo for imposition of fee; be it to the person concerned or be it to a group to which he belongs; irrespective of the fact as to whether the benefit of such service is received directly or indirectly. 28. The point at issue is required to be considered keeping in view the aforementioned legal position. 29. By reason of the provisions of the U.P. Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam, 1964, the trade carried out by the respondents is sought to be regulated. 30. Some service, therefore, was required to be rendered by the State or the statutory authority to the owners of the factory producing molasses or the molasses industries generally if an impost by way of ‘fee’ was to be levied.” 18. Applying the above principles to the present case, we find enumeration of obligatory and discretionary functions of the Corporation in Sections 29 and 30 under which civic services are rendered to the ratepayers for which taxes are leviable as mentioned in Section 170 of the Act. As stated above, the entire 131 Part IV of the Act deals not only with the levy of taxes, it also deals with assessments, valuation, collection and recovery of taxes. The entire machinery for filing of returns, objections and inspection of records and properties comes under the part which deals with taxation. The maintenance of assessment books, annual reports, valuation reports, etc. all come under the part which deals with taxation. Section 183 which deals with notice of transfer also comes under the same part. It is true that under Section 183(5), fees are payable for mutation as may be prescribed under the regulations, still as stated above, the primary object of such a charge is to augment the revenue and the levy of such a charge cannot be treated to be a part of the regulatory measure. Further, under the Regulations, the Corporation while prescribing fees has levied fees on ad valorem basis which is one mors circumstance to show that the impugned levy is in the nature of tax and not in the nature of a fee. Further, the quantum of levy indicates that it is a tax and not a fee. The analysis of the various provisions of the Act and the impugned Regulations shows that the impugned levy is in exercise of power of taxation under the said Act to augment the revenues primarily and not as a part of regulatory measure. As stated above, the purpose of mutation is to register the transfer in the records of the Corporation which in turn would help the Corporation to recover taxes from the existing taxpayers. Therefore, no special benefit results to the transferee who is made statutorily liable to inform the Corporation of the change, if any, in the name of the person primarily liable to pay the tax. …. …. …. 21. Now coming to the question of challenge to the levy as arbitrary and discriminatory and violative of Article 14, we find that the functions of the Corporation with regard to mutation remain the same, whether the applicant is a transferee under a conveyance or a lessee or a beneficiary under a Will or an heir in the case of intestate succession. Once an application for mutation is made, the same is examined by the department and after hearing the objections, if any, the record is ordered to be changed. Ultimately, the exercise is for fiscal purpose. Similarly, the property valuation may be below Rs. 50,000 or above Rs. 2 lakhs, the function of the Corporation in making the mutation entry remains the 132 same. Similarly, whatever may be the cause of mutation, whether it is a case of transfer or devolution, the activity of mutation remains constant in all the cases. The expenses incurred in all the cases also cannot vary, whatever be the value of the property or the cause of mutation. In the circumstances, there is no reason given for charging different rates depending on the value of the property and the cause of transfer. By doing so, the incidence of the levy falls differently on persons similarly situated resulting in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. Moreover, the quantum of fees is disproportionate to the so-called services” which is one more circumstance showing arbitrariness in the levy of such imposition. So far as Article 14 is concerned, the courts in India have always examined whether the classification was based on intelligible differentia and whether the differentia had a reasonable nexus with the object of legislation. (See Om Kumar v. Union of India [(2001) 2 SCC 386].) 22. Applying the said tests to the impugned levy, we find that the levy is irrational, arbitrary, discriminatory and beyond Section 183(5) of the said 1980 Act. (Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court, here again, elaborately considers the distinction between a fee and a tax and holds that fee can be charged only for services that are rendered. JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION OF FEE: 16. Levy of fee, in its exclusiveness, has also been a subject matter of judicial interpretation. 133 16.1. The Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta considering drainage development fees imposed by CALCUTTA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION and others held in ASIAN LEATHER LIMITED v. KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORAITON8, as follows: “…. …. …. 12. At this juncture, it will be profitable to refer to the well-known proposition of law that a natural person has the capacity to do all lawful things unless his capacity has been curtailed by some rule of law. It is equally a fundamental principle that in case of a statutory corporation, it is just the other way. The Corporation has no power to do anything unless those powers are conferred on it by the statutes, which crates it. See: Manimuddin Bepari v. Chairman of the Municipal Commissioner, Dacca reported in 40 CWN 17. …. …. …. 14. Bearing in mind the aforesaid principles and after going through the various provisions of the Act, the Rules and the Regulations framed thereunder, referred to by Mr. Mitra, the learned senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, we do not find that either in the Act or the Rules or the Regulations framed thereunder, any right or authority has been to the Corporation to realize drainage development fees from the owners of the land or the building at the time of sanction of the building plan as condition precedent for grant of permission to raise building. … … … 23. We have already indicated that unless specifically authorized by the statute, a Corporation cannot realize any amount from the citizen and so far, the 8 2007 SCC OnLine Cal 268 134 delegated legislation Is concerned, nothing can be Implied for the justification of realization of any amount either as tax or as fees, which Is not specifically authorized. (Emphasis applied) 16.2. A Division Bench of High Court of Gujarat, again considering imposition of tax/fee on installation of mobile communication towers by the Gujarat Urban Development and Urban Housing Department holds in the case of INDUS TOWERS LIMITED V. STATE OF GUJARAT9, as follows: “…. …. …. 24. In this regard it may be germane to refer to the provisions of Articles 265 and 243-X of the Constitution which reads thus: “265. Taxes not to be imposed save by authority of law. “No tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law.” “243-X. Power to impose taxes by, and Funds of, the Municipalities. - The Legislature of a State may, by law,” (a) authorize a Municipality to levy, collect and appropriate such taxes, duties, tolls and fees in accordance with such procedure and subject to such limits; (b) assign to a Municipality such taxes, duties tolls and fees levied and collected by the State Government for such purposes and subject to such conditions and limits; 9 2010 SCC OnLine Guj 3777 135 (c) provide the making such grants-in- aid to the Municipalities from the Consolidated Fund of the State; and (d) provide for constitution of such Funds for crediting all moneys received, respectively, by or on behalf of the Municipalities and also for the withdrawal of such moneys there from, as may be specified in the law. …. …. …. 27. Apart from Article 265 which prohibits levy or recovery of tax except by authority of law, Article 243-X specifically provides that the Legislature of a State may, by law authorize a Municipality to levy, collect and appropriate such taxes, duties, tolls and fees in accordance such procedure and subject to such limits as may be specified by law. Thus, on a conjoint reading of Articles 265 and 243-X, there is a prohibition against levy and recovery of tax by a Municipality unless the Legislature of the State in exercise of powers under Article 243-X authorizes the Municipality to levy and collect such taxes, fees etc. In the present case, a bare reading of the impugned Government resolution indicates that the same has not been issued in exercise of any statutory power. However, even if the statutory provision under which the power is derived is not mentioned, so long as there is some statutory provision under which such power is derived, the Government resolution would not stand vitiated. In the circumstances it would next be required to be examined as to whether there is any statutory provision which vests in the State or the Municipal Corporations or Municipalities, the power to levy and collect annual permission fees and installation charges for erection of mobile telecommunication towers put up by cellular companies. …. …. . … 29. Since the levy in question is termed annual permission fee and installation charge, it may be pertinent to refer to the provisions of Chapter XXII of the BPMC Act which provides for “Licences and Permits”. The said Chapter is subdivided into nine parts as under: 136 1. Licensing of Surveyors, Architechs or Engineers, Structural Designers, Clerks of Works and Plumbers; 2. Trade licences and other licences for keeping animals and certain articles; 3. Licences for sale in municipal markets; 4. Licences for private markets; 5. Licences for sale of Articles of Food outside of Markets; 6. Licensing of Butchers, etc.; 7. Licensing for diary products; 8. Licences for hawking, etc.; and 9. General provisions regarding licences and permits. …. …. …. 34. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, it is apparent that insofar as Municipal Corporations are concerned, the respondents have not been in a position to point out any statutory force behind the levy of annual permission fee and/or installation charges. The Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur v. McDowell and Co. Limited (supra) has held thus: “Tax”, “duty”, “cess’ or “fee” constituting a class denotes to various kinds of imposts by State in its sovereign power of taxation to raise revenue for the State. Within the expression of each specie each expression denotes different kind of impost depending on the purpose for which they are levied. This power can be exercised in any of its manifestation only under any law authorizing levy and collection of tax as envisaged under Article 265 which uses only the expression that no “tax” shall be levied and collected except authorised by law. It is its elementary meaning conveys that to support a tax legislative action is essential, it cannot be levied and collected in the absence of any legislative sanction by exercise of executive power of State under Article 73 by the Union or Article 162 by the State” In the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision cited hereinabove, it is apparent that in absence of legislative sanction, the State Government in exercise of its executive power under Article 162 cannot levy and collect annual permission fee 137 and installation charges in relation to mobile telecommunication towers put up by Cellular companies.” (Emphasis supplied) 16.3. Later, the Apex Court in the case of M.CHANDRU v. MEMBER-SECRETARY, CHENNAI METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY10, considering what is quid pro quo has held as follows: “…. …. …. Quid pro quo 23. The State or the Board did not state as to on what basis the rate of Rs 64 per square metre was fixed. What was the amount to be spent towards services to be rendered to the multi-storeyed and special buildings had not been spelt out. What had merely been stated was that the amount was necessary to be spent for overall development of the water supply and sewerage system. 24. It is not contended before us that IDC is not a fee but a tax. If it is a fee, the principle of quid pro quo shall apply. Like a State, all other authorities which are statutorily empowered to levy the same must spell out as to on what basis the same is charged. The State has not placed any material before the High Court. The High Court has also not addressed itself properly on the same issue. It failed to pose unto itself a relevant question. It proceeded on the basis as if overall development charges by itself is sufficient to levy a fee without spelling out how the services rendered will satisfy the equivalence doctrine for the purpose of levy and collection of fees. 10 (2009) 4 SCC 72 138 25. In Krishna Das v. Town Area Committee, Chirgaon [(1990) 3 SCC 645 : 1990 SCC (Tax) 374] this Court observed: (SCC p. 652, paras 22-24) “22. A fee is paid for performing a function. A fee is not ordinarily considered to be a tax. If the fee is merely to compensate an authority for services performed or as compensation for the services rendered, it can hardly be called a tax. However, if the object of the fee is to provide general revenue of the authority rather than to compensate it, and the amount of the fee has no relation to the value of the services, the fee will amount to a tax. In the words of Cooley, ‘A charge fixed by statute for the service to be performed by an officer, where the charge has no relation to the value of the services performed and where the amount collected eventually finds its way into the treasury of the branch of the Government whose officer or officers collect the charge is not a fee but a tax.’ 23. Under the Indian Constitution the State Government's power to levy a tax is not identical with that of its power to levy a fee. While the powers to levy taxes is conferred on the State Legislatures by the various entries in List II, in it there is Entry 66 relating to fees, empowering the State Government to levy fees ‘in respect of any of the matters in this list, but not including fees taken in any court’. The result is that each State Legislature has the power, to levy fees, which is co-extensive with its powers to legislate with respect to substantive matters and it may levy a fee with reference to the services that would be rendered by the State under such law. The State may also delegate such a power to a local authority. When a levy or an imposition is questioned, the court has to inquire into its real nature inasmuch as though an imposition is labelled as a fee, in reality it may not be a fee but a tax, and vice versa. The question to be determined is whether the power to levy the tax or fee is conferred on that authority and if it falls beyond, to declare it ultra vires. 24. We have seen that a fee is a payment levied by an authority in respect of services performed by it for the benefit of the payer, while a tax is payable for 139 the common benefits conferred by the authority on all taxpayers. A fee is a payment made for some special benefit enjoyed by the payer and the payment is proportional to such benefit. Money raised by fee is appropriated for the performance of the service and does not merge in the general revenue. Where, however, the service is indistinguishable from the public services and forms part of the latter it is necessary to inquire what is the primary object of the levy and the essential purpose which it is intended to achieve. While there is no quid pro quo between a taxpayer and the authority in case of a tax, there is a necessary co-relation between fee collected and the service intended to be rendered of course the quid pro quo need not be understood in mathematical equivalence but only in a fair correspondence between the two. A broad co-relationship is all that is necessary.” 26. In Jindal Stainless Ltd. (2) v. State of Haryana [(2006) 7 SCC 241] a Constitution Bench of this Court stated: (SCC p. 267, paras 40-41) “40. Tax is levied as a part of common burden. The basis of a tax is the ability or the capacity of the taxpayer to pay. The principle behind the levy of a tax is the principle of ability or capacity. In the case of a tax, there is no identification of a specific benefit and even if such identification is there, it is not capable of direct measurement. In the case of a tax, a particular advantage, if it exists at all, is incidental to the State's action. It is assessed on certain elements of business, such as, manufacture, purchase, sale, consumption, use, capital, etc. but its payment is not a condition precedent. It is not a term or condition of a licence. A fee is generally a term of a licence. A tax is a payment where the special benefit, if any, is converted into common burden. 41. On the other hand, a fee is based on the ‘principle of equivalence’. This principle is the converse of the ‘principle of ability’ to pay. In the case of a fee or compensatory tax, the ‘principle of equivalence’ applies. The basis of a fee or a compensatory tax is the same. The main basis of a fee or a compensatory tax is the quantifiable and 140 measurable benefit. In the case of a tax, even if there is any benefit, the same is incidental to the government action and even if such benefit results from the government action, the same is not measurable. Under the principle of equivalence, as applicable to a fee or a compensatory tax, there is an indication of a quantifiable data, namely, a benefit which is measurable.” 27. In Mumbai Agricultural Produce Market Committee v. Hindustan Lever Ltd. [(2008) 5 SCC 575] this Court observed: (SCC p. 579, para 14) “14. The quantum of recovery, however, need not be based on mathematical exactitude as such cost is levied having regard to the liability of all the licensees or a section of them. It would, however, require some calculation.” It was further stated: (Hindustan Lever case% [(2008) 5 SCC 575] , SCC p. 580, para 18) “18. Cost of supervision, if borne by the State has to be recovered by it. The burden was, therefore, on the State to justify the levy. Even the general or special order, if any, purported to have been issued by the State has not been brought on record. On what basis, the supervision charges were being calculated is not known. The premise for levy or recovery of the amount of supervisory charges is not founded on any factual matrix. Only the source of the power has been stated but the basis for exercise of the power has not been disclosed.” 28. Recently, in Mohan Meakin Ltd. v. State of H.P. [(2009) 3 SCC 157: (2009) 1 Scale 510] this Court opined that the jurisdiction of the State to impose such a levy is limited. When a fee is levied, the question as regards “aspects of power to levy fee vis-à-vis tax” must be borne in mind. 29. Furthermore, it was held in A.P. Paper Mills Ltd. v. Govt. of A.P. [(2000) 8 SCC 167: 2000 SCC (L&S) 1077] that even if a fee is levied for issuance of permit, it was only for the purpose of recovering the administrative charges. (See also Ashok Lanka v. Rishi Dixit [(2005) 5 SCC 598] .) 141 30. This Court in Kerala SamsthanaChethuThozhilali Union v. State of Kerala [(2006) 4 SCC 327 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 796] , upon noticing State of Kerala v. Maharashtra Distilleries Ltd. [(2005) 11 SCC 1] opined: (Kerala Samsthana case% [(2006) 4 SCC 327 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 796] , SCC p. 343, para 39) “39. In State of Kerala v. Maharashtra Distilleries Ltd.% [(2005) 11 SCC 1] this Court took notice of the provisions of Section 18-A of the Act. It was held that the State had no jurisdiction to realise the turnover tax from the manufacturers in the garb of exercising its monopoly power. It was held that turnover tax cannot be directed to be paid either by way of excise duty or as a price of privilege.” 31. Even while levying a fee, a quantum jump is deprecated. 32. In Indian Mica Micanite Industries v. State of Bihar [(1971) 2 SCC 236] it has been held: (SCC pp. 242-43, para 17) “17. … There cannot be a double levy in that regard. In the opinion of the High Court the subsequent transfer of denatured spirit and possession of the same in the hands of various persons such as wholesale dealer, retail dealer or other manufacturers also requires close and effective supervision because of the risk of the denatured spirit being converted into palatable liquor and thus evading heavy duty. Assuming this conclusion to be correct, by doing so, the State is rendering no service to the consumer. It is merely protecting its own rights. Further in this case, the State which was in a position to place material before the Court to show what services had been rendered by it to the appellant and other similar licensees, the costs or at any rate the probable costs that can be said to have been incurred for rendering those services and the amount realised as fees has failed to do so. On the side of the appellant, it is alleged that the State is collecting huge amount as fees and that it is rendering little or no service in return. The co-relationship between the services rendered and the fee levied is essentially a question of fact. Prima facie, the levy appears to be excessive even if the State can be said to be rendering some service to the licensees. The State ought to be in 142 possession of the material from which the co-relationship between the levy and the services rendered can be established at least in a general way. But the State has not chosen to place those materials before the Court. Therefore the levy under the impugned rule cannot be justified.” 33. In this case, the State in fact has not produced any material whatsoever before the High Court, which it was required for meeting the challenge on imposition of fee by it. As in Mohan Meakin Ltd.% [(2009) 3 SCC 157 : (2009) 1 Scale 510] , in this case also no justification for levy of fee has been placed before the High Court, we are of the opinion that the matter should be remitted to the High Court for consideration of the matter afresh.” (Emphasis supplied) 17. The Apex Court, in the case of GAURAV KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA11, has held as follows: “…. …. …. 31. In CIT v. McDowell & Co. Ltd. [CIT v. McDowell & Co. Ltd., (2009) 10 SCC 755 : (2009) 314 ITR 167] , a three-Judge Bench of this Court enunciated the principles for interpreting Article 265 read with Article 366(28) : (SCC p. 763, paras 21- 22) “21. “Tax”, “duty”, “cess” or “fee” constituting a class denotes various kinds of imposts by State in its sovereign power of taxation to raise revenue for the State. Within the expression of each specie each expression denotes different kinds of impost depending on the purpose for which they are levied. This power can be exercised in any of its manifestations only under any law authorising levy and collection of tax as envisaged under Article 265 which uses only the expression that no “tax” shall be levied and collected except authorised by law. It in its elementary 11 (2025) 1 SCC 641 143 meaning conveys that to support a tax legislative action is essential, it cannot be levied and collected in the absence of any legislative sanction by exercise of executive power of State under Article 73 by the Union or Article 162 by the State. 22. Under Article 366(28) “Taxation” has been defined to include the imposition of any tax or impost whether general or local or special and tax shall be construed accordingly. “Impost” means compulsory levy. The well-known and well-settled characteristic of “tax” in its wider sense includes all imposts. Imposts in the context have following characteristics: (i) The power to tax is an incident of sovereignty. (ii) “Law” in the context of Article 265 means an Act of legislature and cannot comprise an executive order or rule without express statutory authority. (iii) The term “tax” under Article 265 read with Article 366(28) includes imposts of every kind viz. tax, duty, cess or fees. (iv) As an incident of sovereignty and in the nature of compulsory exaction, a liability founded on principle of contract cannot be a “tax” in its technical sense as an impost, general, local or special.” 32. The Seventh Schedule to the Constitution differentiates between taxing entries and general entries. Subjects pertaining to the levy of taxes must be traced to specific taxing entries enumerated in either List I or List II. [M.P.V. Sundararamier& Co. v. State of A.P., (1958) 9 STC 298 : 1958 SCC OnLine SC 22] In addition, Parliament has the residuary power under Article 248 read with List I Entry 97 to legislate on matters not enumerated in List II or List III, including on matters of taxation. The power of the legislature to levy fees is dealt with under separate heads : (i) List I Entry 96 empowers Parliament to levy fees in respect of any matters in List I; (ii) List II Entry 66 empowers the State Legislatures to levy fees in respect of any matters in List II; and (iii) List III Entry 47 empowers both Parliament and the State Legislatures (subject to Article 254) to levy fees for any matter enumerated 144 in List III. Parliament has prescribed an enrolment fee under Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act under List I Entry 96. 33. The legislature can delegate its power to levy fees. [Kandivali Coop. Industrial Estate v. Municipal Corpn. of Greater Mumbai, (2015) 11 SCC 161, para 25] Since a fee is an impost and a compulsory exaction of money, the power of a delegate to levy fees must flow from the express authority of law. In Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority v. Sharadkumar Jayantikumar Pasawalla [Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority v. Sharadkumar Jayantikumar Pasawalla, (1992) 3 SCC 285, para 7] this Court observed : (SCC p. 292, para 7) “7. … In our view, such power of imposition of tax and/or fee by delegated authority must be very specific and there is no scope for implied authority for imposition of such tax or fee. It appears to us that the delegated authority must act strictly within the parameters of the authority delegated to it under the Act and it will not be proper to bring the theory of implied intent or the concept of incidental and ancillary power in the matter of exercise of fiscal power.” 34. The principles that flow from the above discussion are: (i) a fee is an impost in terms of Article 366(28); (ii) the expression “tax” occurring in Article 265 means all imposts, including fees and therefore any fee must be levied by the authority of a valid law; (iii) fees being a compulsory exaction of money, the power to levy fees cannot be implied; (iv) delegation of the power to levy fees to a delegate of the legislature should be specifically provided for under the parent legislation; and (v) the delegate must strictly act within the parameters of the legislative policy laid down by the parent legislation when levying fees and taxes.” … … … 145 101. The decision of SBCs to charge exorbitant fees also suffers from the vice of manifest arbitrariness. In Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. State of Karnataka [Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (1996) 10 SCC 304, para 13] , this Court laid down the following principles for challenging delegated legislation : (i) the test of arbitrary action which applies to executive actions does not necessarily apply to delegated legislation; (ii) a delegated legislation can be struck down only if it is manifestly arbitrary; and (iii) a delegated legislation is manifestly arbitrary if it is not in conformity with the statute or offends Article 14. In Clariant International Ltd. v. SEBI [Clariant International Ltd. v. SEBI, (2004) 8 SCC 524, para 63 : (2004) 122 Comp Cas 112] , a three- Judge Bench of this Court held that when any criterion is fixed by a statute or by a policy, the subordinate authority must follow the policy formulation broadly and substantially. Non-conformity with the legislative policy will render delegated legislation arbitrary. [Union of India v. Cipla Ltd., (2003) 7 SCC 1, para 9]” (Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court summarises the law on what a fee is and how it can be imposed. It is thus, a settled principle of constitutional law, reiterated time without number, that no impost in the nature of tax or fee may be exacted from a citizen, save by the authority of law; and law in this context must mean not, the executive fiat of the Authority nor the circular of a department, but an enactment of the legislature clothed with the constitutional mandate and fortified by statutory sanction. Article 265 of the Constitution of India declares 146 that no tax shall be levied or collected except by Authority of law, it necessarily encompasses within its sweep every compulsory exaction, however named. Therefore, as a matter of inexorable logic, the power to levy a fee must be treaceable to a statute, clearly expressed, never left to conjecture, inference or executive convenience. 18. The Authority to impose a pecuniary burden on any citizen however big or small, cannot be presumed nor can it be by implication; it must spring directly from the legislation and if the legislature has chosen to delegate such power, the delegation must be express, unambiguous and circumscribed within the boundaries of the legislative policy. Tested on the anvil of these principles, the impugned Circular, whereby a so-called delay fee has been sought to be imposed on promoters and developers stands exposed as utterly failing of statutory parentage. It finds no sustenance in the Act; it locates no foundation in the Rules; it is not the offspring of delegated legislation either. It is in fact a levy, conjured into 147 existence by executive assertion, unsupported by legislative warrant. 19. The reliance placed on Sections 11, 34 and 37 of the Act by the respondents is wholly misplaced. Section 11 imposes duties, but confers no power of exaction. Section 37 enables directions to be issued, but the power to issue directions cannot, by any stretch of judicial imagination, metamorphose into the Authority to impose compulsory pecuniary burden. Sections 61 and 63 also does not empower the impugned levy of delay fee, while they contemplate penalties, those are limited to what is observed in the said provisions. Therefore, from any of the provisions that the respondents seek to place reliance upon, delay fee cannot be distilled. Wherefrom this impost has arisen? This Court finds no answer within the four corners of the statute, it is an impost without lineage under the statute, an exaction without authority, a levy without law. The conclusion is therefore inevitable. The Circular stands no constitutional or statutory footing and is an exercise of power unsupported by authority, it must fail. 148 20. Accordingly, this Court holds that circular purporting to impose delay fee is arbitrary, illegal and void, for the exactions made thereunder cannot be sustained in law and must in consequence, meet its inexorable fate - the fate of obliteration. 21. For praefatus reasons, the following: ORDER (i) Writ Petitions are allowed. (ii) The Circular dated 03-09-2020 impugned in these petitions stands quashed. (iii) The petitioners in all these cases become entitled to consequential benefits that would flow from quashment of the Circular. The quashment of the Circular will not come in the way of legislation or imposition of subject fee in a manner known to law. 149 (iv) The Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority is directed to consider the application of the petitioner in W.P.No.4770 of 2024 seeking withdrawal of registration without insistence of delay fee. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE bkp CT:MJ