HP High Court Questions Shifting Of RERA Office From Shimla To Dharamshala; Interim Order Restraining Shift To Continue
The Himachal Pradesh High Court admitted a petition challenging the decision of the State Government to shift the Real Estate Regulatory Authority office from Shimla to Dharamshala.The Court remarked that RERA was a small institution with limited manpower and that the State ought to consider relocating larger offices instead of burdening a statutory authority with minimal staff.A Division...
The Himachal Pradesh High Court admitted a petition challenging the decision of the State Government to shift the Real Estate Regulatory Authority office from Shimla to Dharamshala.
The Court remarked that RERA was a small institution with limited manpower and that the State ought to consider relocating larger offices instead of burdening a statutory authority with minimal staff.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj remarked that: “the interim order is likely to continue, keeping in view the number of employees to be shifted to the projects, which are not even remotely linked to Kangra as it would be a humongous task for the developers as such to firstly co-ordinate with the RERA office at Dharamshala and then with the other offices which give necessary permissions which are placed at Shimla.”
The Court noted that the districts of Solan, Shimla and Sirmaur collectively account for 80% of RERA-registered projects in Himachal Pradesh, whereas, there are only 20 projects in Kangra.
The petitioner contended that the decision was arbitrary, impractical, and would adversely affect real estate developers and stakeholders across the State.
In response, the State submitted that the the aim of relocation decision was to decongest Shimla and promote development in Kangra district. It further contended that the move was in public interest and within the administrative discretion of the Government.
Case Name: Naresh Sharma v/s Union of India and others
Case No.: CWPIL No. 38 of 2018
For the Petitioner: Mr.Ankush Dass Sood, Senior Advocate with
Mr.Ajay Siphiya and Mr. Tarun Mehta, Advocates for the petitioner.
For the respondents: Ms.Vandna Misra, Central Government Counsel
for respondent No.1.
Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr.Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General for the respondents- State.
Mr.Raman Ravi Verma, Advocate for respondent No.4