Subsequent judicial declarations cannot reopen final orders that remained unchallenged within the statutory limitation period.

On December 17, 2019, the Adjudicating Officer ("AO") of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority ("RERA") ordered the Petitioner to refund Rs. 1,35,99,246 with interest to a flat purchaser

The Petitioner failed to challenge this order under Section 44 of the RERA Act, 2016, allowing it to attain finality

Consequently, a recovery warrant was issued on October 8, 2021

On November 11, 2021, the Supreme Court delivered the judgment in Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of UP, which the Petitioner argued rendered the AO’s refund order non est for lack of jurisdiction

The Petitioner approached the High Court in August 2024, seeking to quash the 2019 and 2021 orders based on the law declared in Newtech

1. Whether an order passed by an Adjudicating Officer for refund of investment is rendered non est by the subsequent law declared by the Supreme Court in Newtech

2. Whether the High Court should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 to reopen matters that have attained finality due to a subsequent change in legal interpretation

Section 18 establishes the substantive right to a refund and compensation

Section 71 provides for the appointment of an Adjudicating Officer specifically for adjudging compensation

Section 81 allows the Authority to delegate any of its powers (except rule-making) to any member or officer

The court relied on Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of UP, which clarified that while Regulatory Authorities can order refunds, AOs exclusively adjudge compensation

The court applied principles from U.P. Jal Nigam v. Jaswant Singh regarding delay and laches

The court applied principles from Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax, Rajkot v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd., which holds that retrospective judicial decisions do not disturb res judicata or settled accounts

The Court distinguished the Petitioner's interpretation of Newtech, noting that the Supreme Court in that case was determining if a Whole Time Member (WTM) had the power to order refunds, not whether an AO was strictly prohibited from doing so if delegated

The Court observed that under Section 81 of the RERA Act, RERA may delegate any executive or quasi-judicial function (excluding compensation adjudication, which is statutory to the AO) to its officers

Since an AO is a judicially trained officer of RERA, delegating the "lesser task" of a summary refund inquiry to them is not inherently contrary to the Act’s scheme

Regarding the Petitioner’s delay, the Court held that since the 2019 order attained finality and the Petitioner waited nearly three years after Newtech to file the writ, the matter was closed and concluded

The Court emphasized that the extraordinary jurisdiction of Article 226 is discretionary and should not be used to protect "indolent" litigants or reopen settled rights based on later shifts in law

It held that Newtech does not provide an automatic ground to nullify long-settled orders

The Court concluded that the inordinate delay of five years since the original order and three years since the Newtech judgment precluded the exercise of discretionary relief