- with readers working within the Banking & Credit industries
- within Real Estate and Construction, Law Department Performance and International Law topic(s)
Renney Geo Varghese v. Kerala Real Estate Regulatory Authority and Ors. High Court of Kerala, 23 July 2026
Introduction
In a significant pronouncement concerning the procedural framework governing the Kerala Real Estate Regulatory Authority (K-RERA), the High Court of Kerala, in Renney Geo Varghese v. Kerala Real Estate Regulatory Authority and Ors., has reaffirmed that the principles of natural justice cannot be diluted merely because a statutory authority is empowered to regulate its own procedure. The judgment, delivered by Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. on 23 July 2026 in a batch of two writ petitions, carries considerable significance for allottees and homebuyers who approach K-RERA seeking redressal against promoters and developers.
Factual Background
The petitioners in both writ petitions had lodged complaints before K-RERA. Rather than being registered and adjudicated in the ordinary course, these complaints were rejected at the threshold as "not maintainable," a conclusion recorded in Ext.P1 in both proceedings. The reasoning for this rejection was contained in the corresponding Ext.P2 orders, which, notably, engaged in a detailed examination of the merits of the disputes, including reliance upon the pendency of connected proceedings before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission initiated by an association of allottees.
Critically, these adverse orders were passed before the complaints were even numbered by the Authority and, more importantly, without affording the petitioners any opportunity of hearing. Aggrieved by this procedural infirmity, the petitioners invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Issues Before the Court
The Court was called upon to consider, firstly, whether K-RERA possessed the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the merits of a complaint at the preliminary stage of scrutiny and numbering, and secondly, whether such a determination could validly be rendered without providing the complainants an opportunity to be heard.
Rival Contentions
Counsel for the petitioners contended that the Ext.P2 orders were unsustainable in law, having been passed without a hearing and at a stage anterior to the numbering of the complaints. It was submitted that the Authority was not vested with the power to render findings touching upon the merits of a dispute in the absence of due process. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents was heard in opposition, defending the impugned orders, though the judgment does not record any distinct substantive justification advanced on behalf of the Authority.
Statutory Framework Examined
The Court’s analysis proceeded on a close reading of Section 38 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and Regulations 8, 9 and 10 of the Kerala Real Estate Regulatory Authority (General) Regulations, 2020. Section 38(2) obliges the Authority to be guided by principles of natural justice even while regulating its own procedure. Regulations 8 to 10, in turn, govern the presentation, scrutiny, endorsement and numbering of complaints, and confine the scope of scrutiny to procedural and documentary compliance rather than substantive adjudication.
The Court’s Reasoning
The Court held that the statutory reference to natural justice in Section 38(2) is not a matter of discretion but a mandatory obligation, requiring the Authority to hear parties before rendering any decision adverse to their interests. Turning to Regulation 9(3), the Court observed that the scope of scrutiny at the pre-numbering stage is confined to ascertaining procedural conformity and the accompaniment of requisite documents; it does not extend to an adjudication of the merits of the controversy. Where defects of a procedural nature are found, the appropriate recourse is to return the complaint for rectification and resubmission, not to dismiss it substantively. Since the Ext.P2 orders undertook a merits-based inquiry prior to numbering and without hearing the petitioners, the Court concluded that they were passed without jurisdiction and in breach of the statutory mandate under Section 38.
Decision
The High Court allowed both writ petitions and quashed the Ext.P2 orders. K-RERA was directed to number the complaints and to consider the grievances of the petitioners on merits, after affording them a due opportunity of hearing.
Conclusion
This ruling serves as a timely reminder that procedural efficiency within regulatory bodies cannot come at the cost of foundational due process guarantees. By clearly demarcating the limited, procedural character of the scrutiny stage from the substantive adjudicatory function of the
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
