JUDGMENT : Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J. 1. Heard Mr. B.P. Sharma, Mr. Vivek Chopda and Mr. Pushp Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Shivangi Agrawal and Ms. Surya Kawalkar Dangi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The appellants have filed the instant miscellaneous appeal with the following prayer :- “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased ex-debitojustiae, call for the record of the case, admit the appeal on the aforesaid questions of law or any other questions of law, as this Hon'ble Court deem fit, and after hearing the parties in the matter, set aside the impugned order passed by the authority below and in effect allow the application for dismissal of appeal and in consequence thereof the Appeal No. 240/2023 and the complaint filed by the Respondent be dismissed, and/or pass such other orders in favour of the appellants herein as this Hon'ble Court deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Brief facts of the case for disposal of this appeal are that a complaint was instituted by the respondent-society under Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (for short, ‘RERA Act’) alleging that the appellants, i.e. developers of Jeevan Vihar Colony situated within Nagar Panchayat, Bodri, District Bilaspur (C.G.) had failed to provide the basic amenities and facilities promised in their brochure, including roads, drains, electricity, boundary wall, streetlights, seven developed gardens, transformer, water supply, borewell, pump house and guard room. It was alleged that although the colony was sanctioned for development and the plots were largely sold, the development work remained incomplete since 2016 and the amenities available were of poor quality, dilapidated and not in conformity with requisite standards. 4. Upon issuance of notice, the appellants entered appearance before the Regulatory Authority and raised preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the complaint. However, despite hearing arguments only on the objection, the Authority, without affording an opportunity of hearing on merits, proceeded to finally decide the complaint by order dated 11.01.2023. The said order was assailed by the appellants by way of an appeal under Section 44 of the RERA Act, wherein an interim order staying the operation of the impugned order was passed. Simultaneously, the respondents also filed Appeal No.143/2023 challenging the rejection of their certain claims. The said order was assailed by the appellants by way of an appeal under Section 44 of the RERA Act, wherein an interim order staying the operation of the impugned order was passed. Simultaneously, the respondents also filed Appeal No.143/2023 challenging the rejection of their certain claims. Both appeals came to be disposed of by order dated 16.10.2023 whereby the matter was remanded to the RERA with directions to grant opportunity of hearing to both sides, appoint a Commissioner to ascertain the status of amenities, record evidence, and examine the validity of the completion certificates dated 22.03.2017 and 20.02.2018 in the light of Rule 11(viii) of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation and Municipalities (Registration of Colonizer, Terms and Conditions) Rules, 2013 (for short, ‘Rules of 2013’), to be concluded within two months. 5. Post-remand, the parties appeared before the Authority, a Commissioner was appointed and a report dated 31.10.2023 was submitted, opining that all development works had been completed in 2016, though presently in a dilapidated condition due to lack of maintenance. The Chief Municipal Officer (CMO), Nagar Panchayat Bodri, was examined on 29.11.2023 and confirmed issuance of both completion certificates, explaining that the certificate dated 20.02.2018 was only a clerical correction of the earlier certificate dated 22.03.2017. On this basis, the RERA passed its order dated 15.12.2023 in Case No. M-PRO-2022-01824. 6. The said order has been challenged by the respondent herein in Appeal No. 240/2024, seeking setting aside of the order dated 15.12.2023, re-examination of the completion certificates, and directions for rectification of alleged deficiencies noted in the Commissioner’s report. During pendency, the appellants filed an application (I.A. No.2) seeking dismissal of the appeal, contending inter alia that the issues raised pertain exclusively to the domain of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961 (for short, ‘Act of 1961’), and that questions relating to validity, grant or correction of completion certificates fall solely within the jurisdiction of the issuing authority under Section 191, and any challenge thereto must be preferred only under Section 308 of the said Act. The Tribunal, however, rejected the said application on grounds which, according to the appellants, misconceive the scope and purpose of an application seeking dismissal of appeal. It is in these circumstances that the present appeal is being considered. 7. Mr. B.P. Sharma, Mr. Vivek Chopda and Mr. The Tribunal, however, rejected the said application on grounds which, according to the appellants, misconceive the scope and purpose of an application seeking dismissal of appeal. It is in these circumstances that the present appeal is being considered. 7. Mr. B.P. Sharma, Mr. Vivek Chopda and Mr. Pushp Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants, submit that the present dispute arises out of a complaint preferred by the respondent-society under Section 31 of the RERA Act, alleging non-completion of development work and non-provision of basic amenities in the colony. It is submitted that upon notice being issued, the appellants appeared before the Authority and filed an application seeking dismissal of the complaint, specifically on the ground that prior to the coming into force of the RERA Act, the competent authority had already issued a valid Completion Certificate dated 22.03.2017 in respect of the project. Treating the said application as a reply, the respondent filed their rejoinder and, for the first time, produced an amended Completion Certificate dated 20.02.2018. 8. It is urged by Mr. Sharma that despite the appellants' specific objection on maintainability, the Learned RERA, without jurisdiction and while discarding the preliminary objection, proceeded to decide the matter on merits, directing the appellants to carry out repairs and further directing the Collector to enquire into the issuance of two completion certificates. Against the said order dated 11.01.2023, the appellants preferred an appeal, which came to be remanded by the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 16.10.2023 with clear and specific directions to re- examine the matter in accordance with law, appoint a commissioner, record evidence, and examine the validity of the completion certificates. He further submits that upon remand, the learned RERA has unequivocally recorded a finding, based on the commissioner’s report and the statement of the Chief Municipal Officer that the certificate dated 20.02.2018 was issued only to correct a clerical error in the earlier certificate dated 22.03.2017. It was further held that RERA has no jurisdiction whatsoever to adjudicate upon the validity or correctness of a completion certificate issued under provisions of the Act of 1961. Notwithstanding this finding, certain directions were issued which the appellants have duly complied with. It is submitted that despite the above, the respondent preferred a fresh appeal challenging only the validity of the completion certificates. Notwithstanding this finding, certain directions were issued which the appellants have duly complied with. It is submitted that despite the above, the respondent preferred a fresh appeal challenging only the validity of the completion certificates. When notices were issued, the appellants entered appearance and filed an application seeking dismissal of the appeal at the threshold on the ground of absolute lack of jurisdiction. The said application, however, has been rejected by the order dated 24.04.2024, which is under challenge herein. 9. It is contended by Mr. Sharma that the substantial questions of law framed by this Court strike at the root of jurisdiction. It is further contended that issuance of a completion certificate for a colony or project is governed exclusively by Section 191 of the Act of 1961, and any grievance against such certificate lies only before the appellate authority prescribed under Sections 307 and 308 of the said Act. Once the statute provides a specific forum and specific procedure, the matter must be adjudicated only in that manner and not otherwise. The RERA Act does not confer any power, express or implied, upon the Regulatory Authority or the Appellate Tribunal to examine, annul, modify or question a completion certificate issued by a Municipal or Nagar Panchayat authority. Consequently, the appeal preferred by the respondent before the REAT was inherently not maintainable and ought to have been dismissed at the threshold. It is further pointed out that even assuming that two completion certificates exist, the CMO himself has categorically clarified that the certificate dated 20.02.2018 only corrects a clerical error present in the certificate dated 22.03.2017, and hence, applying the doctrine of relation back, the subsequent certificate relates back to the original and stands only as a clarificatory document. Therefore, no cause of action survives for the respondent. 10. Lastly, it is urged by Mr. Sharma that the project in question, having received a valid completion certificate prior to the enforcement of the RERA Act, falls outside the purview of RERA; the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal was not maintainable; and the authority below committed a grave jurisdictional error in rejecting the application for dismissal of the appeal. 11. Lastly, it is urged by Mr. Sharma that the project in question, having received a valid completion certificate prior to the enforcement of the RERA Act, falls outside the purview of RERA; the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal was not maintainable; and the authority below committed a grave jurisdictional error in rejecting the application for dismissal of the appeal. 11. Reliance has been placed upon the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Union of India and others v. N. R. Parmar and others , (2012) 13 SCC 340 , Bengaluru Development Authority v. Sudhakar Hegde and others , (2020) 15 SCC 63 , Union of India and others v. N. Murugesan and others , (2022) 2 SCC 25 and Union of India and others v. Mudrika Singh , (2022) 16 SCC 456 to buttress his submissions. 12. On the other hand, Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Shivangi Agrawal and Ms. Surya Kawalkar Dangi, learned counsels appearing for the respondents, opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellants and submit that the entire foundation of the present appeal is misconceived and devoid of substance. It is submitted that the Appellate Tribunal, vide its detailed order dated 16.10.2023, had specifically directed the RERA Authority to examine the legality, validity and correctness of the completion certificate dated 22.03.2017, particularly with reference to Rule 11(viii) of the Rules of 2013. The said direction has attained finality, the appellants having not challenged it before any superior forum. Once the Tribunal itself had mandated such an inquiry, any determination thereafter made by the RERA Authority could only be challenged under Section 44 of the RERA Act, and the jurisdiction to examine the propriety, legality or correctness of such findings lies exclusively before the Appellate Tribunal. 13. It is further submitted by Mr. Paranjpe that the completion certificate relied upon by the appellants is one issued under the Rules of 2013, which merely certifies compliance under town- planning laws. However, when such certificate is invoked for exemption under Section 3(2)(b) of the RERA Act, a much broader scrutiny becomes necessary, namely, whether the project is actually complete in terms of the sanctioned plan, promised amenities, quality standards, timelines and statutory obligations under the RERA framework. However, when such certificate is invoked for exemption under Section 3(2)(b) of the RERA Act, a much broader scrutiny becomes necessary, namely, whether the project is actually complete in terms of the sanctioned plan, promised amenities, quality standards, timelines and statutory obligations under the RERA framework. Such an inquiry falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of the RERA Authority and, in appeal, the Appellate Tribunal, as municipal authorities are not empowered to adjudicate compliance under the RERA Act. 14. Mr. Paranjpe places reliance upon the recent judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in MA No. 21/2024, M/s M. Ahuja Projects (P) Ltd. v. Green Colony Residents Welfare Society decided on 29.04.2024 , wherein it has been categorically held that the definition of “completion certificate” under Section 2(q) of the RERA Act must receive a purposive interpretation, and that completion cannot be confined merely to the sanctioned layout but must encompass all amenities promised in the brochure. Thus, a municipal completion certificate issued without full inspection or without ensuring fulfillment of the promoter’s obligations under RERA cannot be treated as conclusive for exemption purposes. 15. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Madras High Court in M/s Sare Shelters Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Are Squires Sare Homes Crescent Parc Dewy , 2021 LQ MADHC 226 , wherein it was held that a completion certificate must satisfy the standards of the RERA Act and that an invalid or improper certificate, issued without proper inspection, cannot absolve the promoter from the applicability of RERA. 16. It is next submitted by Mr. Paranjpe that the existence of two competing completion certificates, one dated 22.03.2017 and the other dated 20.02.2018, raises a serious and substantial controversy affecting the applicability of the RERA Act itself. The earlier date would take the project outside the scope of RERA, while the later certificate would attract full application of the Act. Determining the genuineness, correctness, competence of issuance and legal effect of these certificates is a matter squarely within the jurisdiction of the RERA Authority and the Appellate Tribunal under Sections 43 and 44 of the RERA Act. 17. Lastly, Mr. Paranjpe submits that the application for dismissal of the appeal was wholly misconceived as a first appeal cannot be rejected on a preliminary objection. The right of first appeal is a valuable substantive right, requiring full consideration on both facts and law. 17. Lastly, Mr. Paranjpe submits that the application for dismissal of the appeal was wholly misconceived as a first appeal cannot be rejected on a preliminary objection. The right of first appeal is a valuable substantive right, requiring full consideration on both facts and law. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malluru Mallappa (Dead) through Legal Representatives v. Kuruvathappa and others, (2020) 4 SCC 313 , wherein it has been held that the first appellate authority must adjudicate all issues on merits and cannot dispose of the appeal without full application of judicial mind. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly rejected the appellant’s application and proceeded to examine the dispute on merits. 18. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the entire material placed on record with utmost circumspection. 19. The rival submissions advanced before us reveal that the core controversy centres around the jurisdiction of the RERA Authority as well as the Appellate Tribunal to adjudicate upon issues relating to the grant, validity and effect of the completion certificates dated 22.03.2017 and 20.02.2018 issued by the Municipal authorities under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961 and the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation & Municipalities (Registration of Colonizer, Terms & Conditions) Rules, 2013. While the appellants contend that the project stood duly completed prior to the enforcement of the RERA Act, 2016, and that the issuance of completion certificates is a matter exclusively governed by the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961 thus falling outside the statutory domain of the RERA Authority, the respondents assert that the municipal completion certificate cannot be treated as conclusive for the purposes of exemption under Section 3(2)(b) of the RERA Act unless the Authority is satisfied that all amenities, facilities and infrastructural components promised to allottees have been fully delivered in accordance with the sanctioned plan, brochure and statutory obligations of the promoter. 20. We find that the matter assumes further complexity on account of the existence of two completion certificates issued by the same authority, the latter of which dated 20.02.2018 purports to correct a clerical error in the earlier certificate. 20. We find that the matter assumes further complexity on account of the existence of two completion certificates issued by the same authority, the latter of which dated 20.02.2018 purports to correct a clerical error in the earlier certificate. Whereas the appellants maintain that the subsequent certificate is merely clarificatory in nature and, by application of the doctrine of relation back, relates to the date of the original certificate thereby confirming the project’s exemption from RERA, the respondents dispute the legality and validity of both certificates and contend that the very correctness of the “completion” must be adjudicated in light of the admitted fact that several basic amenities such as roads, drains, streetlights, boundary wall, gardens and other essential services remained incomplete for years. 21. In this backdrop, we have also carefully examined the orders passed by the RERA Authority on 11.01.2023 and then again on 15.12.2023, as well as the earlier order dated 16.10.2023 passed by the Appellate Tribunal, whereby the matter was remanded with specific directions for a fresh determination. The subsequent findings of the RERA Authority, particularly with reference to the commissioner’s report and the statement of the CMO, holding that the corrected completion certificate merely rectified the nomenclature and that the RERA Authority lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate upon municipal completion certificates, have also been brought to our notice. Equally, we have considered the stance of the respondents that once the Tribunal had directed a re- examination of the completion certificate, such determination could be challenged only by way of a statutory appeal, and that the appellants’ application seeking dismissal of the appeal on maintainability was rightly rejected. 22. Thus, upon hearing the parties and considering the statutory scheme, the factual background, the competing claims as to jurisdiction, and the legal effect of the two certificates placed before us, the matter now crystallises into the substantial questions of law framed at the time of admission, which we proceed to consider in detail herein-below. 23. This Court, vide its order dated 22.08.2024, has formulated the substantial questions of law arising for consideration in the present appeal, which reads as follows :- “A. Whether the RERA/ authority has any jurisdiction with regard to completion certificates and in the present case regarding grant of completion certificates vide letters dated 22.3.2017 and 20.2.2018? 23. This Court, vide its order dated 22.08.2024, has formulated the substantial questions of law arising for consideration in the present appeal, which reads as follows :- “A. Whether the RERA/ authority has any jurisdiction with regard to completion certificates and in the present case regarding grant of completion certificates vide letters dated 22.3.2017 and 20.2.2018? B. Whether the authority below ought to have allowed application for dismissal of appeal and dismiss the appeal itself pending before it in the facts and circumstances of the case?” 24. From perusal of the order dated 11.01.2023 passed by the Chhattisgarh Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Raipur, it appears that the complaint filed by the Jeevan Vihar Residential Welfare Society under Section 31 of the RERA Act was entertained on allegations that the development of the colony was incomplete and that several basic amenities such as roads, drains, water supply system, boundary wall, transformer, gardens and children’s play area had not been provided as per the brochure and approved layout. The Authority recorded the preliminary objection of the respondents regarding maintainability on the ground that a Completion Certificate had been issued on 22.03.2017 and therefore the project was outside the purview of RERA. However, upon examining the rejoinder and documents, the Authority noticed that a second Completion Certificate had also been issued on 20.02.2018 and that no explanation had been offered by the respondents for issuance of two certificates. Holding that the objection regarding maintainability was untenable, the Authority proceeded to examine the alleged deficiencies and, based on photographs and material on record, found several amenities to be incomplete or substandard. Accordingly, directions were issued to the Collector, Bilaspur to enquire into issuance of two completion certificates and further directions were issued to the respondents to rectify the deficiencies within a stipulated time and thereafter execute a conveyance deed transferring the common areas to the Residents’ Committee in terms of Section 17 of the RERA Act. 25. The said order was challenged by the appellants before the Chhattisgarh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Raipur, and the Tribunal vide order dated 16.10.2023 has concluded that the proceedings before the RERA suffered from serious procedural deficiencies. 25. The said order was challenged by the appellants before the Chhattisgarh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Raipur, and the Tribunal vide order dated 16.10.2023 has concluded that the proceedings before the RERA suffered from serious procedural deficiencies. The Tribunal observed that neither any Commissioner had been appointed in compliance with the earlier directions nor had the Authority, on its own motion, undertaken any independent assessment to obtain a clear and technical picture regarding the status of the amenities alleged to be incomplete. It was further held that the RERA had failed to return a categorical finding as to whether the purported Completion Certificate dated 22.03.2017 was issued by a competent authority and whether such certificate satisfied the mandatory requirements contemplated under Rule 11(viii) of the Rules of 2013. Taking note of these lapses, the Tribunal concluded that the matter required a complete retrial and accordingly set aside the impugned order, directing the RERA to afford full opportunity of hearing to both sides, appoint a Commissioner to ascertain the actual status of amenities, permit parties to adduce evidence, frame appropriate points for determination including the validity and legality of the Completion Certificate dated 22.03.2017 and thereafter decide the matter afresh within an outer limit of two months from the date of receipt of the order. 26. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondents again approached the Chhattisgarh Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Raipur, which, vide order dated 15.12.2023, concluded that upon reconsideration of the matter pursuant to the directions issued by the Appellate Tribunal, the Authority examined the Commissioner’s report in detail, evaluated the documentary evidence adduced by both parties, and addressed the objections raised by the appellants regarding the validity of the Completion Certificates dated 22.03.2017 and 20.02.2018. The Authority found that several developmental deficiencies still remain unrectified and that the appellants had failed to offer any cogent explanation for the issuance of two separate Completion Certificates in respect of the same project. It was further observed that the essential civic amenities and infrastructure promised to the allottees were either incomplete or not in conformity with the approved layout plan. Consequently, the Authority reiterated its earlier directions to the appellants to remedy the deficiencies within a prescribed time frame and to take necessary steps for execution of the conveyance deed transferring the common areas in favour of the residents’ committee, in accordance with Section 17 of the RERA Act. 27. Consequently, the Authority reiterated its earlier directions to the appellants to remedy the deficiencies within a prescribed time frame and to take necessary steps for execution of the conveyance deed transferring the common areas in favour of the residents’ committee, in accordance with Section 17 of the RERA Act. 27. Aggrieved by this order, the respondent preferred Appeal No. 240/2024 before the Chhattisgarh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Raipur. The Appellate Tribunal, vide its order dated 24.04.2024, observed that the scope of examination before the RERA as well as before the Tribunal in the remand proceedings was limited to determining whether the so-called completion certificate satisfied the mandatory requirements contemplated under Rule 11(viii) of the Rules of 2017. The Tribunal further held that once a specific direction had already been issued in the earlier round of litigation requiring such an examination, and the said direction had attained finality, the respondents/promoters could not be permitted to reopen or circumvent the same by raising the issue of maintainability through I.A. No. 2. 28. It was also observed that the maintainability of the substantive appeal under Section 44(2) of the RERA Act, stood fortified in view of the statutory right of appeal available to any aggrieved person against an order of the RERA, and therefore, no ground existed to interfere with the order rejecting I.A. No. 2. 29. From perusal of the record, it appears that a Completion Certificate was issued by the Nagar Panchayat, Bodri, District Bilaspur, to the appellants on 22.03.2017, wherein it has been recorded that pursuant to the application dated 21.03.2017 submitted by M/s Ralas & Chopra Builders through Shri Sanjay Chopra, the development works carried out in Jeevan Vihar Colony, Phase–I and Phase–II, Ward No. 03, were inspected by the competent authority. The Certificate further reflects that upon inspection, the internal and external development works of the colony were found to be completed and that the maintenance of essential civic amenities such as water supply, drainage, street lights and garden was being undertaken by Jeevan Vihar Colony Committee. Accordingly, in exercise of powers under Clause 11(viii) of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation (Registration, Restrictions and Conditions of Colonizer) Rules, 2013, the Completion Certificate for Phase–I and Phase–II of the said colony was issued in favour of the appellants. 30. Accordingly, in exercise of powers under Clause 11(viii) of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation (Registration, Restrictions and Conditions of Colonizer) Rules, 2013, the Completion Certificate for Phase–I and Phase–II of the said colony was issued in favour of the appellants. 30. Further, a modified Completion Certificate was issued on 20.02.2018, clarifying that pursuant to the application dated 07.02.2018 submitted by M/s Ralas & Chopra Builders through Shri Sanjay Chopra, the development works carried out in Jeevan Vihar Colony, Phase-I and Phase-II, Ward No. 03, were re- inspected by the Nagar Panchayat, Bodri. The certificate records that both internal and external development works of the colony were found to be complete and that essential civic amenities, including water supply, drainage, street lights and garden maintenance, were being undertaken by the Jeevan Vihar Colony Committee. Accordingly, in exercise of powers under Clause 11(viii) of the Chhattisgarh Municipality (Registration of Colonizer, Terms and Conditions) Rules, 2013, the corrected Completion Certificate for Phase-I and Phase-II was issued, treating it as a modification/clarification of the earlier certificate dated 22.03.2017. 31. It is an admitted position that the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA) received the assent of the President on 25.03.2016 and was notified to come into force on 01.05.2016, though only 59 sections, primarily relating to the constitution of the Regulatory Authority, the Central Advisory Council, and rule-making powers were brought into effect at that stage. 32. The substantive and operative provisions of the Act, including those relating to project registration, promoter obligations, adjudicatory mechanisms and regulatory oversight, were subsequently enforced with effect from 01.05.2017. Thus, the regulatory regime under RERA became fully applicable in the State of Chhattisgarh only from 01.05.2017. 33. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of N.R. Parmar (supra) has held as follows :- “41. Before examining the merits of the controversy on the basis of the advanced on behalf of the direct recruits. It was the contention of the learned OM dated 3-3-2008, it is necessary to examine one related submission counsel, that the OM dated 3-3- 2008 being an executive order issued by the this behalf it was pointed out, that the disputed seniority between rival parties Training, would apply only before this Court was based on the appointment to the cadre of Income Tax Inspectors, well before the OM dated 3-3-2008 was issued. As such, it was pointed out, that the same would not affect the merits of controversy before this Court. We have considered the instant submission. It is not possible for us to accept the aforesaid contention advanced at the hands of the learned counsel. If the OM dated 3-3- 2008 was in the nature of an amendment, there may well have been merit in the submission. The OM dated 3-3-2008 is in the nature of a "clarification". Essentially, a clarification does not introduce anything new, to the already existing position. A clarification, only explains the true purport of an existing instrument. As such, a clarification always c relates back to the date of the instrument which is sought to be clarified.” 34. Further, in Bengaluru Development Authority (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under :- “31. The analysis of the Committee recorded that the main suggestions related to the expansion of the scope of the Notification by including within its ambit expressways, bypasses, major district roads, tunnelling for roads within city limits and peripheral roads around municipal corporation limits. Significantly, the Committee took note of the perception that highways and expressways differed from each other. Though it appeared from the comments that an expansion was sought in the scope of the 2006 d Notification, the Committee explicitly clarified that the term "highways" includes "expressways". For other items, the Committee stated that they may be considered separately. The clarification issued for highways and expressways did not amount to an expansion in the scope of the 2006 Notification but only made clear that the term highways always included expressways. 32. Where an amendment is clarificatory in nature, such amendment is deemed to be retrospective in its application.” 35. Also, in N. Murugesan (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under :- “26. These phrases are borrowed from the Scots law. They would only mean g that no party can be allowed to accept and reject the same thing, and thus one cannot blow hot and cold. The principle behind the doctrine of election is inbuilt in the concept of approbate and reprobate. Once again, it is a principle of equity coming under the contours of common law. Therefore, he who knows that if he objects to an instrument, he will not get the benefit he wants cannot be allowed to do so while enjoying the fruits. The principle behind the doctrine of election is inbuilt in the concept of approbate and reprobate. Once again, it is a principle of equity coming under the contours of common law. Therefore, he who knows that if he objects to an instrument, he will not get the benefit he wants cannot be allowed to do so while enjoying the fruits. One cannot take advantage of one h part while rejecting the rest. A person cannot be allowed to have the benefit of an instrument while questioning the same. Such a party either has to affirm or disaffirm the transaction. This principle has to be applied with more vigour as a common law principle, if such a party actually enjoys the one part fully and on near completion of the said enjoyment, thereafter questions the other part. An element of fair play is inbuilt in this principle. It is also a species of estoppel dealing with the conduct of a party. We have already dealt with the provisions of the Contract Act concerning the conduct of a party, and his presumption of knowledge while confirming an offer through his acceptance unconditionally.” 36. Very Recently, in Mudrika Singh (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the similar issue has observed as follows :- “23. An amendment to a statute or to statutory rules may often be C clarificatory in nature. It is clarificatory in the sense that it expressly recognises amendment is purely clarificatory or declaratory in nature, it is deemed to a power that already vests in the authority. In those circumstances, when an operate retrospectively. For instance, a Constitution Bench in Shyam Sunder v Ram Kumar, (2001) 8 SCC 24 held that an amending act or a declaratory act need not explicitly d mention its declaratory nature to be operative retrospectively. Speaking on behalf of the Constitution Bench, V.N. Khare, J. (as he then was) noted: (SCC p. 49, para 39) “39. Lastly, it was contended on behalf of the appellants that the amending Act whereby new Section 15 of the Act has been substituted is declaratory and, therefore, has retroactive operation. Ordinarily when an enactment declares the previous law, it requires to be given retroactive effect. Lastly, it was contended on behalf of the appellants that the amending Act whereby new Section 15 of the Act has been substituted is declaratory and, therefore, has retroactive operation. Ordinarily when an enactment declares the previous law, it requires to be given retroactive effect. The function of a declaratory statute is to supply an omission or to explain a previous statute and when such an Act is passed, it comes into effect when the previous enactment was passed. The legislative power to enact law includes the power to declare what was the previous law and when such a declaratory Act is passed, invariably it has been held to be retrospective. Mere absence of use of the word "declaration" in an Act explaining what was the law before may not appear to be a declaratory Act but if the court finds an Act as declaratory or explanatory, it has to be construed as retrospective. Conversely where a statute uses the word "declaratory", the words so used may not be sufficient to hold that the statute is a declaratory Act as words may be used in order to bring into effect new law." (emphasis supplied)” 37. Reverting to the facts of the present case in the light of the abovementioned judicial precedents, it is quite apparent that the core dispute raised by the respondent in the present appeal fundamentally relates to the validity, issuance, and effect of the Completion Certificates dated 22.03.2017 and 20.02.2018, issued by the Nagar Panchayat, Bodri, under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961 and the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation & Municipalities (Registration of Colonizer, Terms & Conditions) Rules, 2013. 38. It is an admitted position that the substantive provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 came into force in the State of Chhattisgarh only from 01.05.2017, while the original Completion Certificate was issued on 22.03.2017. The modified certificate dated 20.02.2018 was issued merely to correct a clerical error and does not in any manner alter the original legal effect of the certificate issued in March 2017. 39. From the record, it is evident that the Commissioner appointed by the RERA Authority, as well as the Chief Municipal Officer of Nagar Panchayat Bodri, have clarified that the second certificate dated 20.02.2018 was issued solely to rectify minor nomenclature errors in the original certificate and has no independent effect beyond the original certificate. 39. From the record, it is evident that the Commissioner appointed by the RERA Authority, as well as the Chief Municipal Officer of Nagar Panchayat Bodri, have clarified that the second certificate dated 20.02.2018 was issued solely to rectify minor nomenclature errors in the original certificate and has no independent effect beyond the original certificate. This conclusion is consistent with the settled principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in N.R. Parmar (supra), Bengaluru Development Authority (supra), N. Murugesan (supra), and Mudrika Singh (supra), which establish that a clarificatory or declaratory act or certificate operates retrospectively, relating back to the original instrument or date, and does not introduce any new legal obligation or responsibility. 40. The principle of approbate and reprobate, as elaborated in N. Murugesan (supra), further reinforces that a party cannot accept the benefits of a document or instrument and simultaneously challenge the same. In the present case, the appellants, having duly complied with the statutory requirements for obtaining the Completion Certificate and having enjoyed the benefits thereof, cannot be permitted to be treated as liable under RERA merely because the respondent later questions the certificate. 41. It is equally clear that the issuance, scrutiny, or rectification of Completion Certificates falls exclusively within the purview of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961. Sections 307 and 308 of the Act of 1961, provide specific remedies for challenging such certificates before the competent municipal appellate authority. The RERA Act does not, either expressly or by necessary implication, confer any jurisdiction upon the Regulatory Authority or the Appellate Tribunal to examine, annul, modify, or question municipal completion certificates. Therefore, the appeal filed by the respondent under RERA, insofar as it seeks to challenge the municipal Completion Certificates, was inherently not maintainable. 42. The factual matrix also reveals that the project in question, Jeevan Vihar Colony, Phases-I and II, had been duly inspected and certified as complete by the competent municipal authority prior to the enforcement of the RERA Act. The subsequent issuance of a modified certificate dated 20.02.2018 merely corrected clerical anomalies and, in accordance with the doctrine of relation back, is to be read as part of the original certificate dated 22.03.2017. Consequently, no fresh cause of action arises for invoking the jurisdiction of the RERA Authority with regard to the validity of the municipal certificate. 43. The subsequent issuance of a modified certificate dated 20.02.2018 merely corrected clerical anomalies and, in accordance with the doctrine of relation back, is to be read as part of the original certificate dated 22.03.2017. Consequently, no fresh cause of action arises for invoking the jurisdiction of the RERA Authority with regard to the validity of the municipal certificate. 43. It is pertinent to mention that the case laws relied upon by the respondents, including the Division Bench judgment in M/s M. Ahuja Projects (P) Ltd. (supra) and the decision of the Madras High Court in M/s Sare Shelters Projects Pvt. Ltd. (supra), are of no assistance to the respondents. These decisions are distinguishable as they deal with completion certificates issued after the enforcement of the RERA Act and concern ongoing projects where RERA obligations were contemporaneously applicable. In contrast, in the present case, the original Completion Certificate predates the operative provisions of RERA and the subsequent certificate is merely clarificatory. Therefore, the reasoning in the cited cases cannot be applied to the facts at hand, and reliance thereon is misplaced. 44. Upon an anxious consideration of the statutory framework governing real estate regulation and municipal administration, the factual matrix brought on record, and the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the controversy gives rise to the following substantial questions of law: Question A: Whether the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) possesses jurisdiction to examine or adjudicate upon the Completion Certificates dated 22.03.2017 and 20.02.2018 issued by Nagar Panchayat, Bodri? Answer: At the threshold, and for the limited purpose of determining the maintainability of proceedings under the RERA Act, the Authority does not possess jurisdiction to scrutinize, test, or pronounce upon the issuance, validity, correctness, or legal effect of Completion Certificates granted under the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961 read with the Rules of 2013, so long as such certificates remain in force and have not been declared illegal by a competent forum. Prima facie, a real estate project which has been certified as complete under the applicable municipal law prior to the enforcement of the RERA regime in the State of Chhattisgarh would fall outside the regulatory fold of RERA. Prima facie, a real estate project which has been certified as complete under the applicable municipal law prior to the enforcement of the RERA regime in the State of Chhattisgarh would fall outside the regulatory fold of RERA. This conclusion, however, is rendered subject to an important caveat, namely that if the Completion Certificates in question are subsequently found by the competent municipal or statutory authorities to have been issued contrary to law, without adherence to prescribed procedure, or in undue haste, then the legal consequences flowing therefrom shall ensue strictly in accordance with law. Question B: Whether the Authority below erred in declining to allow the appellants’ application seeking dismissal of the appeal at the threshold? Answer: In the considered opinion of this Court, the application seeking dismissal of the appeal raised a foundational objection touching upon the very jurisdiction of the RERA Authority. In the presence of municipal Completion Certificates, which prima facie certified completion of the project prior to the advent of the RERA Act, the jurisdictional objection warranted serious consideration. The rejection of the said application, without first addressing the limited but crucial aspect of prima facie maintainability, cannot be sustained. At the same time, it is clarified that allowance of such an application can only operate subject to the continued legal validity of the Completion Certificates under municipal law and does not amount to a conclusive adjudication on merits. 45. In light of the foregoing analysis, the statutory scheme governing Completion Certificates, and the conclusions reached hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appeal filed by the appellants deserves to be allowed in a limited and qualified sense. Consequently, the impugned order dated 24.04.2024, whereby the Authority rejected the appellants’ application seeking dismissal of the appeal at the threshold, is unsustainable in law and is accordingly set aside. 46. As a necessary corollary, Appeal No. 240/2024 pending before the Authority stands disposed of, subject to the observations and clarifications made herein. Consequently, the impugned order dated 24.04.2024, whereby the Authority rejected the appellants’ application seeking dismissal of the appeal at the threshold, is unsustainable in law and is accordingly set aside. 46. As a necessary corollary, Appeal No. 240/2024 pending before the Authority stands disposed of, subject to the observations and clarifications made herein. It is made explicit that, at this juncture, neither the RERA Authority nor the Appellate Tribunal shall assume jurisdiction whether express, implied, or incidental to examine, reopen, or adjudicate upon the issuance, validity, correctness, or legal effect of the Completion Certificates dated 22.03.2017 and 20.02.2018 issued by Nagar Panchayat, Bodri, so long as the said certificates subsist and have not been invalidated by a competent authority under the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961 and the Rules framed thereunder. 47. The materials available on record indicate that the subsequent Completion Certificate dated 20.02.2018 was issued ostensibly with the object of addressing certain clerical, procedural, or descriptive aspects of the original Completion Certificate dated 22.03.2017. However, this Court deliberately and consciously refrains from returning any finding, observation, or conclusive opinion as to whether either of the said Completion Certificates was issued strictly in conformity with the statutory procedure prescribed under the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961 and the Rules framed thereunder, or whether the issuance of the said certificates was attended by undue haste, procedural irregularity, or any illegality. Such an examination would necessarily entail appreciation of factual and technical aspects which lie beyond the limited scope and jurisdictional confines of the present proceedings and falls squarely within the domain of the competent authorities constituted under municipal law. 48. It is, therefore, clarified in explicit and unequivocal terms that if, upon a due and proper inquiry conducted by the competent authorities under the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961, the Completion Certificates dated 22.03.2017 and 20.02.2018 are found not to have been issued in accordance with law, or are found to have been obtained without adherence to the prescribed statutory procedure, or to have been granted in undue haste resulting in illegality, the said authorities shall be fully at liberty to examine, enquire into, and decide the said core issue strictly in accordance with law. Any such decision shall be rendered independently, uninfluenced by any observation, prima facie view, or conclusion recorded in the present judgment. 49. Any such decision shall be rendered independently, uninfluenced by any observation, prima facie view, or conclusion recorded in the present judgment. 49. In the eventuality that the Completion Certificates are declared illegal, invalid, void, or non est in the eye of law by the competent authority, it shall be open to the aggrieved parties to avail themselves of such remedies as are available under the law. In such a situation, and only upon such a declaration, the concerned parties shall be at liberty to approach the Real Estate Regulatory Authority for adjudication of disputes, if any, arising within the scope of the RERA Act. Any proceedings so initiated before RERA shall be entertained, examined, and decided independently on their own merits, without being influenced by any of the observations made herein, and strictly in accordance with the provisions and legislative intent of the RERA Act. 50. It is reiterated, ex abundanti cautela, that this Court has consciously refrained from entering into the merits of the dispute between the parties and has not expressed any final, binding, or determinative opinion on the legality, validity, correctness, or procedural regularity of the Completion Certificates dated 22.03.2017 and 20.02.2018. The present judgment is confined exclusively to the limited issue of prima facie maintainability of proceedings before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority and does not prejudice, curtail, or foreclose the rights, remedies, or contentions of any of the parties, all of which are expressly left open to be agitated before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. 51. Accordingly, and in view of the aforesaid observations, clarifications, and directions, the instant appeal stands disposed of, with no order as to costs.