Summary
The Supreme Court declined an individual homebuyer’s Article 32 petition seeking project-wide cancellation or completion, refund, judicial management and investigations concerning Sushant Megapolis. Statutory civil and criminal remedies were available, while the requested intervention would entail day-to-day project supervision beyond judicial review. The petitioner could pursue those remedies. Existing court-monitored real estate proceedings were expressly unaffected.
Issues
- Whether Article 32 should be invoked by an individual buyer for project-wide relief and court-supervised management where statutory remedies exist.
Provisions considered
- Article 32, Constitution of IndiaThe Court declined discretionary intervention in these circumstances, considering available statutory fora, the nonrepresentative nature of the petition and the project-management functions the relief would entail. (¶¶ 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9)
Held
- Judicial review of a public authority’s decision differs from taking over decision-making and managing a construction project. Appointing a judicial committee would still require continuing court supervision of matters beyond its adjudicative role. (¶¶ 4, 5, 8)
- One homebuyer had not sought to represent the entire class, and the Court could not assume that every buyer wanted cancellation and refund rather than completion. Statutory representative and individual remedies remained available. (¶¶ 5, 6, 7, 8)
- The request for criminal investigation also had to proceed through the available statutory procedures and judicial remedies. The Court’s refusal to entertain this direct petition did not prevent the petitioner pursuing appropriate relief. (¶¶ 8, 9)
- The decision did not affect the Amrapali, Unitech or similar real estate proceedings already being monitored by the Court. (¶ 8)
Result
Article 32 petition disposed of without entertaining the requested intervention, with liberty to pursue remedies under the relevant statutory provisions.