by Rajesh Mourya
Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Neela Gokhale of the Bombay High Court voiced concerns regarding MahaRERA’s exclusive use of virtual hearings. The court questioned, “What is the difficulty in letting parties appear in person? You will know the grievances of a person face-to-face. Here (online) you don’t know…”
This observation came during the hearing of a petition filed by Kandivli resident Mayur Desai, who sought the expeditious execution of an order reserved in March 2024 related to delayed possession of a flat. Despite a November 2022 directive for the developer to pay interest on amounts paid by Desai, the execution proceedings faced delays.
The court noted that while other courts and tribunals resumed physical or hybrid hearings post-pandemic, MahaRERA continued with virtual hearings. Advocates representing RERA bar associations highlighted issues such as lack of transparency, absence of cause lists, and difficulties in seeking urgent hearings. They also pointed out that older matters were given preference and that there was no mechanism to track orders passed.
In response, RERA’s secretary, Prakash Sabale, cited reasons for the delays, including the retirement of the erstwhile secretary and requests for adjournments by the developer. He also mentioned that virtual hearings enabled aggrieved persons to access justice from anywhere. The Times of India
The judges emphasized the importance of in-person hearings, stating, “You (RERA) have to put your house in order…What is the purpose and object of enacting RERA? It was for the problems of flat purchasers, a vulnerable set of people.”
The matter was closed for order, with the court directing bar associations and RERA’s advocate to submit written submissions. Justice Mohite Dere remarked, “We will have to say why we were constrained to take up this issue before we pass the order.”
