Suppression of parallel proceedings disentitles petitioners to discretionary writ relief.

The petitioners purchased ground-floor units, G-1 to G-4, in “The Royal Peace Apartment,” Agartala, developed by Respondent No. 5, for commercial purposes in 2020.

They alleged that the developer constructed two toilets/latrines beyond the approved municipal building plan and erected a brick-wall/tin-shed guard room obstructing ingress and egress.

The petitioners complained to the Agartala Municipal Corporation and the Tripura Real Estate Regulatory Authority (T-RERA), which passed orders directing removal/demolition of the allegedly unauthorised constructions.

They thereafter filed the present writ petition seeking enforcement of those orders, initiation of proceedings for violation of building laws, compensation, and costs.

Respondent No. 5 contended that the petitioners had themselves converted residential premises into commercial establishments, that the toilets were common facilities, and that the developer had attempted demolition but was obstructed by other flat owners.

The Municipal Corporation argued that the petitioners had pursued parallel remedies before the Corporation and T-RERA and had suppressed the fact that they had already initiated execution proceedings before T-RERA.

Whether the writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable when the petitioners had pursued parallel remedies before the Municipal Corporation and T-RERA in respect of the same cause of action.

Whether the petitioners were entitled to a writ of mandamus directing enforcement of the demolition orders against the developer.

Whether the petitioners’ use of residential premises for commercial activities and their alleged suppression of the T-RERA execution proceedings disentitled them to equitable relief under Article 226.

Whether the disputed toilets and guard room could be ordered to be demolished without considering their alleged status as common facilities and the objections of other flat owners.

The Court exercised its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and applied the principle that a litigant cannot simultaneously pursue concurrent remedies for the same cause of action after electing one remedy.

Relying on M/s. Kabra and Associates & Ors. v. Rekha Rajkumar Hemdev & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 6936 of 2023, and Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. v. Abhishek Khanna, (2021) 3 SCC 241, the Court held that election of one of two concurrent remedies prevents simultaneous pursuit of the other for the same cause of action.

The Court further applied the equitable principle that a party seeking writ relief must approach the Court with clean hands and must disclose material proceedings and facts.

It also considered the applicable municipal building permissions and the alleged residential-use restriction under the conveyance deeds, as well as the nature of a common toilet as a basic facility for building staff and service providers.

The Court found that the petitioners were using the ground-floor premises for a pathology laboratory and eye clinic, despite the premises and conveyance documentation indicating residential use; this was treated as a violation of the applicable building permission and deed conditions.

It further held that the petitioners had pursued proceedings before both the Municipal Corporation and T-RERA and had also initiated execution proceedings before T-RERA before filing the writ petition, without adequately disclosing that fact.

Applying the rule against simultaneous pursuit of concurrent remedies, the Court concluded that the petitioners had not approached it with clean hands.

Additionally, the Court considered that the toilets were located on the ground floor and served security personnel, caretakers, plumbers, electricians, and domestic workers, making them a basic common facility.

It therefore found that the authorities had proceeded toward demolition without sufficiently examining the ground realities and the competing interests of the other occupants.

In these circumstances, the discretionary remedy of mandamus was held to be unwarranted.

It directed each of the four petitioners to pay ₹10,000, totalling ₹40,000, to the High Court Bar Associations within one month and to obtain receipts, with a copy of the order to be marked to the President of the High Court Bar Associations.

Any pending miscellaneous applications were also closed.