CUTTACK: A petition filed in the form of public interest litigation on non-execution of its own orders by Odisha Real Estate Regulatory Authority (ORERA) was dismissed as a ‘private interest litigation’ by the Orissa High Court on Wednesday.
The court also imposed a fine of Rs 2,000 on the petitioner and the amount has to be deposited in the account of Orissa High Court Legal Services Committee within one month. The high court, in its order, said the petitioner (Bimalendu Pradhan) had booked a flat constructed by a real estate firm in Bhubaneswar. Raising some grievance against the builder, the petitioner had approached ORERA. On June 12, 2018, ORERA directed the builder to complete the petitioner’s apartment and hand over possession within two months and pay interest for delay in delivery.
The petitioner ventured to file a writ application in the nature of a PIL raising a grievance that there is no mechanism for execution of the order of ORERA. The ORERA expressed its inability to execute its order and all its orders are being transmitted to the civil courts for execution in the light of section 16 (2) of the Odisha Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Amendment Rules, 2019.
Both the state government and ORERA denied the petitioner’s allegation in their respective counter affidavits. The high court on its part felt it was apparent from the language of section 16 (2) of the rule that the ORERA has jurisdiction to execute its own order and may refer the matter to civil courts for execution where it finds it difficult.
The division bench of Chief Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh and Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra said, “It is apparent from what has been disclosed herein above is that the writ application filed in the nature of a public interest litigation is thoroughly misconceived and is an abuse of the process of the court. It is manifestly in the nature of private interest litigation. The petitioner has his own interest.”
The bench added, “Surprisingly, the petitioner has not made any effort as regards in his own case, according to counsel for the petitioner, but he has collected information regarding non-execution of the orders passed by the ORERA under the Right to Information Act. The conduct of the petitioner in the court’s opinion deserves to be deprecated and is accordingly deprecated.”