SHANKER SHAHI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner entered into an agreement to sell with respondent no. 4 on 20.6.2013 with regard to Flat No. 401, 4th Floor, Block-C, Tulsiani Square, Phase-II, Civil Lines, Allahabad and the petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 32,55,647/- and the balance amount of Rs. 37,44,353/- was to be paid by the petitioner on completion of the flat in question. It is alleged that the respondent no. 4-company has not completed the construction work of the flat within the stipulated time and despite the work not being completed, the respondent-4-company issued a letter dated 30.8.2018 to the Chief Manager, Bank of Baroda for remitting of the balance amount of Rs. 37,00,000/-. The petitioner has made allegations that the fourth respondent is not taking steps for completion of the construction and as such the petitioner made a representation before the respondent no. 3 who has not taken any step thereupon.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that statutory duties are cast upon respondent no. 3 under section 15(9) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Reliance is also placed upon Uttar Pradesh Apartment (Promotion of Construction, Ownership & Maintenance) Act, 2010 to stress that in terms of the statutory duty cast upon the respondent no. 3, the respondent no. 3 is bound to pass an order and take steps for the reliefs as claimed by the petitioner in its representation dated 15.12.2018. On 14.2.2019, this Court while entertaining the petition had directed the petitioner to serve the respondent no. 4. Supplementary affidavit has been filed stating that the services were effected on the respondent no. 4, however, respondent no. 4 has not put in appearance and no counter affidavit was filed. The respondent no. 3 has filed a short counter affidavit stating that the respondent no. 3 is not empowered to enforce the contractual obligations as prayed by the petitioner. It has been further highlighted that the petitioner should approach the authority under the Real Estate Regulatory Authority Act (in short 'RERA' Act) for redressal of his grievance and have thus argued that the writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.