Mayur L. Desai v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: RERA 43

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Hybrid hearings, execution and access to justice before MahaRERA appellate forum: The reported judgment addresses tribunal administration, legal representation, hybrid hearing access and execution/listing mechanisms before the real-estate appellate system.

Material facts and background

Digitally signed by SHAGUFTA 2025:BHC-OS:11784-DB QUTBUDDIN SHAGUFTA QUTBUDDIN PATHAN Date: PATHAN 2025.07.24 17:53:37 +0530

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO.11502 OF 2025 Mayur L. Desai adult Indian inhabitant Aged – 44 years residing at 501, Shree Swami CHS, Plot No. 220 RDP-5 Charkop, Kandivali (West), Mumbai – 400 067 … Petitioner

Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Ministry of Law and Judiciary, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032. 2. Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority Housefin Bhavan, Plot No. C-21 E-Block, Near RBI, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400051.

Mr. Aseem Naphade a/w Ms. Chitrangada Singh i/b Clove Legal for the Petitioner Mrs. Vaishali Choudhari, Addl. G.P a/w Mrs. Madhura Deshmukh, A.G.P for the Respondent No.1-State Mr. Ravi Adsure a/w Mr. A. K. Saxena for the Respondent No. 2- MahaRERA Mr. Prakash Sabale, Secretary, MahaRERA is present SQ Pathan

CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE & DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. RESERVED ON : 27th JUNE 2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 24th JULY 2025 JUDGMENT (Per Revati Mohite Dere, J.) :

a time bound manner pass the final order in the execution/non-compliance proceedings being CC006000000195324/ APPL/NC/2 in the Complaint No. CC006000000195324 of 2020, which was reserved for orders on 21.03.2024; b) to frame guidelines to streamline the process of execution of orders passed by Respondent No. 2Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority including but not limited to (i) providing a mechanism for mentioning matters, (ii) conducting hearings immediately after filing of execution proceedings and (iii) expeditious disposal of execution proceedings.”

dated 25th April 2025, we had, having regard to the fact that the petitioner's application was pending since March 2024, requested the

Appellant / assessee submissions

Mr. Naphade, learned counsel for the petitioner, with

Mr. Naphade, learned counsel for the petitioner

asserts that parties may request physical hearings, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that in practice, not a single case has been listed for physical hearing in recent couple of years.

Revenue / respondent submissions

petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents, and directed them to file their written submissions. Pursuant to the said direction,

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

guidelines be issued to the respondent No. 2 Authority to facilitate the adjudication of grievances and execution of its orders. He also prays that MahaRERA be directed to start Hybrid hearing of cases.

respondent No.2-MahaRERA, has filed an affidavit-in-reply of Mr. Prakash Kaluram Sabale, the Secretary of MahaRERA dated 29th April 2025. From the said affidavit, it appears that hearings of on-line complaints filed by aggrieved parties whether home buyers, promoters, or real estate agents, were held physically pre-

pandemic and transitioned to virtual mode during COVID-19 and continues to hear the complaints virtually, even post COVID-19. As per the affidavit, the IT complaint module of MahaRERA allows complainants to file applications requesting for urgent hearings of complaints as well as for grant of interim reliefs and as such, other applications as considered necessary.

affidavit, it is further stated that the Authority is trying its level best to reduce pendency and has set out a chart of the number of complaints filed and disposed of as on 27 th April 2025 and the number of applications filed for non-compliance of orders passed by the Authority i.e. the number of applications disposed of and pending for final disposal.

further stated that the hearing of the complaints are on-line. However, if the parties desire to have physical hearing, an application for the same is submitted before the respective Bench, the said request may be considered by the Bench.

MahaRERA was previously conducting physical hearings, and that virtual hearings were introduced as a necessity during the pandemic. What is concerning, however, is the Authority’s continued insistence on a virtual-only model, despite the availability of both physical and virtual infrastructure, though all the courts and tribunals across the country, including in Maharashtra have adopted hybrid model. In the light of the aforesaid and more particularly, when parties were being heard physically, we do not understand the resistance of MahaRERA to commence hybrid hearing since it is not in dispute that the facilities to hear the parties physically and virtually are in place. SQ Pathan

virtually as the case may be, is left to the parties and the importance of giving the parties an opportunity to decide the same in today’s day and age, can hardly be understated.

be reduced to a mere formality. Procedural fairness includes the right of parties to choose their mode of hearing, especially when both physical and virtual modalities are feasible. Tribunals must not only be accessible in form, but also in substance.

Amendment in 1976, by introducing Article 323A. Access to justice is an important component of any court, the object being that the parties for whom the Courts/Tribunals exists, must be given an opportunity of being heard. Tribunals were constituted with the sole objective of delivering speedy, inexpensive and decentralized

Operative decision and relief

disposed of with the aforesaid directions. No order as to costs.

Authorities and precedents appearing in the judgment

• The Apex Court in Sarvesh Mathur v. Registrar

This list is machine-assisted from the judgment text and is not a substitute for checking the full citation chain in the PDF.

Ratio and legal principle

The decision turns on Hybrid hearings, execution and access to justice before MahaRERA appellate forum. The operative result is classified as Disposed. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.

Why this judgment matters

The case is relevant to taxpayers, advisers and litigators dealing with Hybrid hearings, execution and access to justice before MahaRERA appellate forum. Its practical value lies in the interaction between the statutory text, the evidentiary record and the procedural route followed in this case.

Practitioner action points

• Use the judgment as a fact-specific precedent: match the statutory version, assessment period, procedural stage and evidentiary record before relying on the result.
• Check whether a later High Court/Supreme Court order has affirmed, reversed, distinguished or rendered the decision academic.
• For litigation, attach the full judgment/order to the working paper and cite the paragraph/page supporting the proposition rather than relying on a headnote alone.

Full judgment and source trail

Read / download the clean local judgment copy

Related Finin2min guidance