Haryana REAT Sets Aside RERA Order Rejecting Inspire Parking Nest's Project Registration Application Due To Lack Of Quorum

Tribunal held that the Authority which consists of a Chairperson and two Members must decide with proper quorum under Section 29 of the RERA Act. Since the order was passed solely by the Chairperson without quorum, it was unsustainable.

Background Facts

The appellant had entered into a Concessionaire Agreement with Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP). Based on this agreement, the appellant applied for registration of its project before the Authority (“Respondent No 1”) on 08.04.2025.

On 30.06.2025, Chairperson of Authority (“Respondent No 2”) rejected the registration application. This order was passed solely by the Chairperson without the participation of other Members of the Authority.

Appellant challenged the order before Tribunal on two grounds. First, the order was passed without the requisite quorum since only the Chairperson decided the matter. Second, the order ignored statutory provisions under the RERA Act.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents argued that the Chairperson was competent to decide the matter alone. They pointed out that one Member of the Authority was on sanctioned leave till 11.07.2025 and another Member had expressed inability to participate. According to them, the law required timely disposal of matters and in such circumstances the Chairperson was justified in proceeding.

Observation and Direction by Tribunal

Tribunal observed that the Authority consists of a Chairperson and two Members and decisions must be taken with proper quorum as required under Section 29 of the Act. The Chairperson sitting alone had no jurisdiction to pass the order.

Tribunal noted that one Member was on leave and another had only expressed temporary inability to participate but was open to giving his opinion if needed. This was not a full recusal. The case could have been postponed until quorum was available.

Tribunal held that the order was passed in undue haste. If the matter had been taken up on another convenient date, quorum could have been achieved and the decision would not have been open to challenge. The absence of quorum made the order unsustainable.

Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in M/s Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P., wherein it was held that Section 29 of the Act governs only policy and regulatory meetings of the Authority and not its quasi-judicial functions. It was further held that quorum requirements cannot be bypassed or delegated to a single Member as policy matters must be decided collectively by the Chairperson and Members to reflect their combined wisdom.

Tribunal observed that the Chairperson should have waited for the Members to return and ensured a decision by majority as per Section 29(3). Expeditious disposal of cases, though important, cannot override the principles of fairness and proper procedure.

Tribunal held that order passed without quorum had caused prejudice to the appellant. The order was therefore set aside.

Lastly, Tribunal directed that the matter be remitted back to the Authority for fresh decision in accordance with law. The Authority was asked to consider the inputs of the Planning Branch, the opinion of the Advocate General and other material on record.

Case – M/s Inspire Parking Nest Pvt. Ltd Versus Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram & Another

Citation - Appeal No.547 of 2025

Click Here To Read/Download The Order