- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17855 WP No. 2691 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 2691 OF 2026 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. 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. REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY SRI. PRATIK K. MEHTA 2. MR. KIRTI MEHTA SON OF KANTILAL MEHTA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS 3. MR. PRATIK MEHTA SON OF MR.KIRTI MEHTA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 4. MR. VINAY K. MEHTA S/O. MR. KIRTI K. MEHTA Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17855 WP No. 2691 of 2026 AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS NO.2 TO 4 RESIDING AT NO. 36, RAILWAY PARALLEL ROAD, NEHRU NAGAR, BANGALORE- 560 020, CURRENT ADDRESS NO.42, CASTLE STREET, ASHOK NAGAR, BANGALORE- 560 025. &PETITIONERS (BY SRI. G.S.VENKAT SUBBARAO., 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. KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY NO.1/14, 2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK, UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND, 3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD, BENGALURU- 560 027. 3. MR. PARTHASARATHY SRINIVASAN S/O P.V.PARTHASARATHY, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17855 WP No. 2691 of 2026 4. MRS. SHOBANA SRINIVASAN W/O PARTHASARATHY SRINIVASAN, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, NO.3 AND 4 RESIDING AT BLOCK NO.3, 2C, MAGNOLIA PARK-2 FIVE FURLONG ROAD, GUINDY, CHENNAI- 600 032. ADDRESS TO SERVICE ALL NOTICES FLAT GC, SCOTTSDALE APARTMENTS HANES ROAD, FRAZER TOWN, BANGALORE- 560 005. &RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI. K V GIRISH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.01.2025 IN FR NO. (K-REAT) 150/2023, PASSED BY KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE, ON IA NO.2/2024 FILED UNDER SEC. 151 OF CPC SEEKING DISPENSATION OF STATUTORY DEPOSIT VIDE ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17855 WP No. 2691 of 2026 ORAL ORDER This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the Impugned Order dated 15.01.2025 in FR No.(K-REAT) 150/2023, passed by Karnataka Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, on IA No.2/2024 filed under Sec.151 of CPC seeking dispensation of statutory deposit, vide Annexure 3A. b) Grant such other relief or reliefs or directions as this Hon9ble Court deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the case, including costs, in the interest of justice and equity. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned AGA appearing for respondent No.1, and the learned standing counsel appearing for respondent No.2. Perused the material on record. 3. The petitioner, a promoter, has called in question the order passed by the RERA Authority, notwithstanding the fact that an appeal has already been preferred before the RERA Appellate Tribunal in FR No.(K-REAT) 150/2023. 4. The impugned order passed by the RERA Authority is admittedly appealable. The records further disclose that the petitioner has already availed the statutory appellate remedy - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17855 WP No. 2691 of 2026 and the same is pending consideration. Having invoked the appellate jurisdiction, the petitioner cannot be permitted to simultaneously invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking identical relief. Such parallel recourse is impermissible in law. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. 6. Liberty is, however, reserved to the petitioner to prosecute the pending appeal. It is further clarified that this order shall not come in the way of the petitioner seeking appropriate relief before the Tribunal, including reconsideration of the requirement of deposit of the entire amount. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE AMM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 25