RERA Appellate Authority directed to consider any appeal and interim application expeditiously.

The petitioner challenged a Chhattisgarh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) order dated 18 June 2026, which he said improperly required him to pay maintenance charges and GST before issuance of an Occupancy/Completion Certificate.

He also sought directions concerning possession, common areas, and proceedings under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.

The petitioner stated that he had approached the High Court because he believed the RERA Appellate Authority was not functioning properly. The respondents submitted that the Appellate Authority was functioning and hearing appeals and interim applications.

The petitioner then sought permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to appeal.

1. Whether the writ petition should proceed when the respondents stated that the RERA Appellate Authority was functioning and entertaining appeals and interim applications.

2. Whether the petitioner could withdraw the petition with liberty to file an appeal before the RERA Appellate Authority, including an interim application.

The Court proceeded on the basis that the petitioner could pursue the statutory appellate remedy before the RERA Appellate Authority, which the respondents represented was functioning and entertaining appeals and interim applications.

The petitioner’s substantive reliance on Sections 11(4)(b), 17, 18(3), 19(10), 63 and 71 of the RERA Act appeared in the reliefs sought, but the Court did not interpret or decide those provisions.

No substantive ruling on the merits or on the legal effect of the alternative remedy was made.

In light of the respondents’ submissions that the Appellate Authority was operational, the petitioner elected to withdraw the writ petition and pursue an appeal with an appropriate interim application.

The Court accepted that course and directed the Appellate Authority, if approached, to consider the appeal and particularly the interim application in accordance with law, endeavouring to decide them expeditiously.

The Court therefore did not examine the legality of the RERA order or the petitioner’s substantive claims.

The Authority was requested to consider the appeal and interim application in accordance with law and endeavour to decide them as expeditiously as possible.

No opinion was expressed on the merits of the petitioner’s claims.