Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA, Act)
S. 43 : Real Estate Appellate Tribunal-Powers of Tribunal-Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority-Right to legal representation-A Hybrid system of hearing-Execution of orders-Delay in enforcement-Virtual-only hearings-Hybrid hearing not offered-Absence of mechanism for urgent listing and execution-Access to justice is an important of any courts / Tribunals exists, must be given an opportunity of hearing-Tribunals were constituted with the sole objective of delivering speedy, inexpensive and decentralised adjudication of disputes in various matters-Exclusive reliance on virtual hearings is unsustainable-Guidelines issued to ensure access to justice-Writ petition allowed. [S. 20, 53,56 RERA Regulations 2017, Circular No. 34A dated 08.04.2025, Sarvesh Mathur v. Registrar General, (2023) MANU/SCOR/03900/2025, Art. 226, 227, 323A]
The Petitioner, Mayur L. Desai, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Bombay High Court, seeking (a) expedited final orders in his execution proceedings pending before Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA), and (b) issuance of guidelines to streamline execution processes, introduce hybrid hearings, and address systemic delays.
The Petitioner contended that despite obtaining a favourable order from MahaRERA, he was unable to enjoy its benefits due to lack of an effective enforcement mechanism. He highlighted the absence of (i) structured processes for urgent hearing, (ii) a clear listing procedure for execution matters, (iii) in-person mentioning, and (iv) effective communication with the Authority. Post-COVID, MahaRERA continued to hold only virtual hearings, unlike other tribunals and courts that adopted a hybrid model.
The Court took note of the serious procedural shortcomings, observing that procedural fairness includes the right to opt for physical or virtual hearing. It found MahaRERA’s insistence on virtual-only hearings to be contrary to the spirit of access to justice, especially when facilities for hybrid hearings existed.
The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s binding judgment in Sarvesh Mathur v. Registrar General [2023 SCC OnLine SC 1293/ MANU/SCOR/03900/2025], which mandated all Courts and Tribunals to provide hybrid hearing infrastructure and emphasized that denying either mode constitutes procedural injustice.
MahaRERA’s exclusive reliance on virtual hearings was unsustainable. The High Court directed MahaRERA to:
1. Restore hybrid hearing facility within 4 weeks.
2. Review Circular 34A (08.04.2025) and relevant SOPs to ensure:
o Mechanism for urgent listing.
o Proper execution of non-compliance orders.
o Mentioning procedures.
o Time-stamped pronouncement of orders.
3. Align its procedures with the Sarvesh Mathur judgment.
4. Maintain a register of praecipes with reasons for acceptance/rejection.
5. Assign fixed hearing dates and notify adjournments clearly.
6. Publicly display SOPs, contact information, Bench calendars, and cause lists.
Quoting President John F. Kennedy, the Court observed:
“The time and the world do not stand still. Change is the law of life. And those who look only to the past or present are certain to miss the future.”
In this spirit, it reminded institutions like MahaRERA that procedural reform is not optional, but a constitutional imperative to ensure meaningful access to justice.
The High Court allowed the writ petition, holding that denial of hybrid hearings and absence of execution infrastructure undermined RERA’s objectives of expeditious and transparent dispute resolution. Rule was made absolute, and MahaRERA was directed to comply with the directions by 4th September 2025. Request for stay of judgment was rejected. (WP-LD No. 11502 of 2025, Bombay High Court dt. 24.07.2025)
Mayur L. Desai v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Bom)(HC) www.itatonlline.org
[Coram : Hon’ble Justice Revati Mohite Dere
Hon’ble Justice Dr. Neela Kedar Gokhale]