AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
It is stated by Mr. B.P. Tripathy, learned counsel that Vakalatnama has been filed on behalf of opposite party no.1 in the Registry, which is not there on record.
The said Vakalatnama be placed on record.
The Petitioner has put to challenge, in the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, an order passed by the Real Estate Regulatory Authority dated 04.11.2023, whereby the petitioner has been asked to pay a sum of Rs.3,82,000/- which was due towards registration of another project namely, Hi Tech Plaza.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner has not disputed that there is a provision for appeal under Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 which he has not availed.
Nearly three months after passing of order by the RERA, the petitioner filed the present writ application without availing statutory remedy of appeal.
There being alternative remedy of appeal, we are not inclined to entertain this writ application as we do not find any exceptional circumstance in the present case.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
It goes without saying that the petitioner shall be at liberty to prefer the appeal against the order which has been impugned in the present appeal.
.………………………………..