Court emphasizes the availability of statutory remedies for grievances related to real estate, fraud, and environmental violations, dismissing writ petitions filed by Vandana Parvez.
In a significant judgment, the Madras High Court has dismissed a series of writ petitions filed by Vandana Parvez against the Government of India and others concerning disputes in a real estate project. The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan, ruled that the petitioner must pursue her grievances through the appropriate statutory forums rather than through writ petitions.
Vandana Parvez, a homebuyer in the Aavisa Golf Township project in Tamil Nadu, alleged various grievances including fraud by promoters, environmental violations, and deficiencies in service. The High Court noted that the petitioner sought multiple reliefs, such as the invalidation of an auction sale, prevention of property mutations, and prosecution of financial crimes. However, the court emphasized that these issues fall under the jurisdiction of specialized statutory bodies like the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA), Consumer Forum, Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), and the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).
The judgment highlighted that the petitioner had previously approached RERA, where certain orders were passed, and directed her to continue seeking redressal through the same channel. The court reiterated that any challenge to actions under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI) must be raised before the DRT.
Addressing the allegations of money laundering, the court pointed out that proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) should be handled by the authorized officers and the adjudicating authority, with appeals available up to the PMLA Tribunal and the High Court.
The judgment also touched upon environmental concerns, stating that any grievances regarding the conversion of wetlands should be addressed through the appropriate regulatory channels. The court dismissed the petitions, stating that they were not maintainable and directed the petitioner to seek remedies through the competent forums available for each specific grievance.
The decision underscores the judiciary's stance on directing litigants to utilize specialized statutory mechanisms designed for specific types of disputes, ensuring that writ jurisdiction is not misused for matters that can be effectively resolved through existing legal frameworks.
Bottom line:-
Writ petitions seeking reliefs concerning real estate project disputes, alleged fraud, and environmental violations dismissed due to availability of remedies before competent statutory forums like RERA, Consumer Forum, DRT, and NCLT.
Statutory provision(s): Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Indian Penal Code (Sections 406, 409, 420, 465, 120B), Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (Section 52), Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017.
Vandana Parvez v. Government of India, (Madras)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2949387
