Bombay HC – Writ Court cannot reopen time-barred RERA refund order in view of subsequent SC judgment
In 2019, the Adjudicating Officer of RERA passed the order for refund of Rs.1,35,99,246/- with interest. This was not challenged within the limitation period under Section 44 of the RERA Act.
On 8.10.2021, the recovery warrant was issued.
On 11.11.2021, the Supreme Court gave judgment in Newtech case that the Adjudicating Officer cannot pass order for refund.
In that context, the question was whether the impugned order passed in the past can be quashed after it had attained finality and in the absence of challenge in the statutory appeal.
- Therefore, when one takes a holistic view of the analysis in Newtech, it is very clear that not only was the Supreme Court examining an issue that is fundamentally different from the factual matrix at hand, but also the Supreme Court made it clear that it was not dealing with any aspect of whether delegation to the Adjudicating Officer was valid. On the contrary, the Supreme Court squarely held that if and when any delegation under Section 81 of the RERA Act is assailed as being contrary to the scheme of the RERA Act, such delegation would be open to judicial review.
- Therefore, in my view, as indicated in Ravi Ranjan, extracted above, Newtech is not a precedent that would have a bearing on this factual matrix of this case. Indeed, neither should words, phrases and sentences in a judgement be read out of context nor should a judgement be read like one would read a statute
Judgment dated 7.4.2026 of the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No.12121 of 2024 of Marvel Landmarks Pvt Ltd Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others
