CHANDIGARH: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has determined that the interim penalty orders issued by the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HRERA) against Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd are appropriate and should not be challenged under writ jurisdiction.
The court affirmed that the penalties were legitimately imposed under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA) for statutory non-compliance. Despite undergoing insolvency proceedings, the company must ensure adherence through its resolution professional. The High Court clarified that the petitioner has the alternative option of appealing to the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal under Section 43(5) of the RERA Act, rather than approaching the High Court directly.
This ruling came from a division bench consisting of Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal and Justice Parmod Goyal, while dismissing a petition filed by Ansal Properties through its resolution professional. The issue arose after HRERA ordered Ansal Properties to pay penalties of ₹8 lakhs each in response to multiple suo motu complaints regarding alleged statutory non-compliance under the RERA Act. These proceedings stemmed from ongoing failures in disclosures and project compliance requirements.
Though Ansal Properties contended that the orders lacked validity due to the ongoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), the bench noted that the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) had admitted a Section 7 petition against the company on February 25, 2025. This appointment of a resolution professional triggered a statutory moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC. The company argued that the moratorium barred HRERA from demanding penalty payments while its management was suspended.
However, upon reviewing the case, the bench observed that the resolution professional retained access to the assets of the petitioner company and that the penalties related to the non-compliance of statutory provisions under the RERA Act. The bench noted that the contested orders were interim in nature, with the petitioner directed to deposit the penalties before the next hearing date. HRERA’s decisions were reinforced by Supreme Court rulings that affirm the authority’s right to impose penalties under Chapter VIII of the RERA Act.
“The Resolution Professional is required to fulfill the statutory obligations outlined in the RERA Act. Consequently, we do not identify any illegality in the interim orders from HRERA that would justify intervention at this stage. Furthermore, the petitioner has an alternative remedy to challenge the orders by appealing to the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal under Section 43(5) of the RERA Act,” the bench stated in dismissing the company’s petition.
