VISHWAS BAWA BUILDERS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though this writ petition is listed to consider I.A.Nos.2/2018 and 3/2018, with the consent of learned counsel appearing on both sides, it is heard finally.

(2.) Petitioner has assailed order dated 29/03/2018 bearing Project No. PR/KN/171230/002602 (Annexure 'F'), issued by respondent No. 2 'Interim Real Estate Regulatory Authority. By the said order, respondent No. 2 'Authority has imposed penalty of 2% of the estimated cost of the project being Rs.18,76,100/- as penalty on the petitioner liable to be paid within seven days from the date of communication of the order, if not, application filed by the petitioner seeking registration of its Project 'Vishwas Supreme' bearing No. PR/KN/171230/002602, is liable to be rejected automatically from the date of expiry of seven days. Thereafter, action under Section 59(2) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 hereinafter, referred to as 'the Act', for the sake of brevity, shall be initiated. Being aggrieved by the said order, petitioner has preferred this writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner has made a two fold submission: firstly, he contended that pursuant to the notice issued by respondent 'Authority, petitioner appeared before the said authority and the case was posted on 17/02/2018 on which date, petitioner was not present, but the case was thereafter, posted to 26/02/2018 at 3.00 p.m., on which date, a representative of the petitioner appeared and the matter was adjourned to 12/03/2018 and on that day also, there was representation of the petitioner seeking dropping of the penalty proceedings. On 12/03/2018, the matter was reserved for orders. He contended that even prior to that i.e., on 28/03/2018, to be precise, petitioner made an application under Section 151 of CPC, seeking permission to produce additional documents and further, seeking reopening of the said proceeding. The said application was filed in the office of the respondent 'Authority. But the same was not put up before the respondent 'Authority and on 29/03/2018, which was on a holiday, on account of 'Maha-veera Jayanthi', the impugned order has been passed. On 31/03/2018, when the petitioner sought to enquire about his application, he was informed that no order had been passed in the matter, but on 03/04/2018, petitioner was informed that the order had been passed on 29/03/2018. Therefore, the second contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that on 29/03/2018, the impugned order could not have been passed when on 31/03/2018 he was informed that no order had been passed as yet.