- (1.) Heard Sri Anubhav Singh learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Anil Tiwari learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Waseem Masood for respondent no. 2.
(2.) This bunch of writ petitions have been filed for quashing of the orders passed by respondent no. 2 namely the U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gautam Budh Nagar, whereby the petitioners (promoters) had been directed to refund the amount deposited by the allottees alongwith interest. Sole ground pressed to challenge the orders impugned is that single member of the Authority had no jurisdiction to decide the complaint of the respondents/allottees and, as such, the order is illegal being coram non judice.
(3.) It is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Authority as conceptualised under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (In short as "the RERA Act, 2016") is the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (In Short as "the RERA or the Authority"), established and incorporated under Section 20 of the RERA Act, 2016 by the appropriate Government. The constitution/composition of the Authority is provided under Section 21 of the RERA Act, 2016 which states that the Authority shall consists of a Chairperson and not less than two whole-time Members to be appointed by the appropriate Government. The complaint filed by the aggrieved person under Section 31 of the RERA Act, 2016 is, thus, can be adjudicated by the Authority, comprising of three members including its Chairperson. A Single Member of the Authority cannot constitute it so as to discharge the adjudicatory functions of the Authority or to exercise the powers under Sections 35 to 40 of the Act, 2016. The orders impugned, therefore, are liable to be set aside being without jurisdiction. ;