In a recent turn of events, the Karnataka High Court has been facing the issue of whether the members of the judiciary are eligible to be a part of the selection committee under Section 22 of the RERA Act, 2016. Section 22 of the RERA Act states the Qualifications of Chairperson and Members of Authority: The Chairperson and other Members of the Authority shall be appointed by the Appropriate Government on the recommendations of a Selection Committee consisting of:
- The Chief Justice of the High Court or his nominee
- The Secretary of the Department dealing with Housing and the Law Secretary, in such manner as may be prescribed
- Persons having adequate knowledge of and professional experience of at least twenty years in case of the Chairperson and fifteen years in the case of the Members in urban development, housing, real estate development, infrastructure, economics, technical experts from relevant fields, planning, law, commerce, accountancy, industry, management, social service, public affairs or administration
Provided that a person who is, or has been, in the service of the State Government shall not be appointed as a Chairperson unless such person has held the post of Additional Secretary to the Central Government or any equivalent post in the Central Government or State Government:
Provided further that a person who is, or has been, in the service of the State Government shall not be appointed as a member unless such person has held the post of Secretary to the State Government or any equivalent post in the State Government or Central Government. In [M.D. Rajkumar v. Union of India, WP 15645 of 2023; decided on 31-07-2023, the petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of Section 22 of the RERA Act, 2016 on the ground that it violates the Basic Structure of the Constitution; principle of separation of powers. The reason behind given being, Section 22 does not specify any involvement of any judicial member, be it the High Court Judge, an advocate or even a solicitor etc. Furthermore, it has been contended that the judicial members if elected in the selection committee do not have the required knowledge or experience in the filed of reals estate and somewhat interfere in the government’s authority to elect the chairman and the other regulatory authority as specifically mentioned in the Act. A single bench of Justice Krishna S. Dixit, deliberated over the challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 22 of Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 raising concerns that the matte requires detailed and serious considerations. The court felt that the petitioner’s contention cannot be completely ignored since its ignorance could have a drastic effect on the real estate system and the Act altogether. A different perspective of the petitioner depicts that Constitutional invalidity of Section 22 will overpower the use of Section 31 of the RERA Act, 2016. Section 31 of the Act provides for filing of complaint by an aggrieved with the Regulatory Authority. The form and manner and the fees payable for filing the complaint are to be specified by Rules to be made by the appropriate Government. In simple terms, from the petitioner’s side it can be assumed that some faults in Section 22 will cause more complaints registered by the aggrieved party which are filed under Section 31 of the RERA Act, 2016.
Finally, owing to the raised issue, the Court directed the Additional Advocate General (AGA) to accept notice on behalf of State of Karnataka and emergent notice was issued upon the Karnataka RERA. The issue is being heard through the case of M.D. Rajkumar v. Union of India, WP 15645 of 2023.
NAME: DIVYA SALGAONKAR, 3rd YEAR BLS LLB, COLLEGE NAME: VES COLLEGE OF LAW, MUMBAI intern under legal vidhiya
Plagiarism Report
0 Comments