17 hours ago
Punjab & Haryana HC terms shifting of RERA HQ to Dharamshala ‘mala fide', slaps Rs 5L fine on govt
Reacting sharply to the state government for shifting the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA)'s headquarters from Shimla to Dharamshala, a division bench of Himachal Pradesh High Court Chief Justice GS Sandhawalia and Justice Ranjan Sharma on Friday termed the move 'mala fide' and slapped a penalty of Rs 5 lakh for failing to appoint the authority's chairman and members despite the necessary process being completed two months ago.
The bench also directed, the detailed order released on Saturday, that Chief Secretary Prabodh Saxena should 'come present on June 25 if the necessary notifications about the appointments of RERA chairman and members were not issued'.
The court directions came during the resumed hearing on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by one Atul Sharma, challenging the extension of Saxena's tenure 'on multiple grounds and the delay in appointing the RERA chairman as well as members'.
The order reads, 'It is also to be noticed that in the interim period, after the recommendation sent, the office of RERA has been relocated to Dharamshala on June 13 without even identifying the alternative office place. We are also of the prima facie opinion that the whole purpose of dragging the appointments and shifting the HQ of RERA is with a mala fide purpose, and at this stage, we do not wish to say anything more.'
The order further states, 'Necessary notifications shall also be issued regarding the appointments by the said date (June 25), failing which the Chief Secretary shall come present on the said date.'
The division bench also reprimanded the state government for dragging its feet in notifying the appointments of the chairperson and members of the HP RERA.
The court, while hearing the matter on Friday, observed that the authorities failed to act despite prior directions and imposed a cost of Rs 5,00,000 on the state government for its inaction.
The order states, 'The matter was first listed on May 9 when it was brought to the court's attention that respondent No. 3 (Chief Secretary) had applied for the post of Chairperson of HP RERA. During the same hearing, the bench noted that the Registrar General of the High Court had forwarded the recommendations for appointments to the state government on March 13. Despite this, no official notification regarding the appointments had been issued. The court had also taken judicial notice of the numerous representations it received, expressing concern over the prolonged delay in filling these key regulatory positions.'
Among the representations placed on record was a letter dated April 16, 2025, from one Sunil Kumar, highlighting the state's inaction. The matter was then adjourned to May 15, with the court directing the Secretary to file an affidavit in light of Rule 18(5) of the Himachal Pradesh Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017, which mandates the selection process be completed in a time-bound manner.
On May 26, the court recorded that the affidavit dated May 15, 2025, filed by the Secretary, admitted the state government's obligation to appoint the chairperson and members. However, it was stated that the RERA office had been relocated to Dharamshala, District Kangra, in accordance with a broader policy decision.
During the last hearing on June 20, the state government informed the court through a status report that only one member— Vidur Mehta — had been appointed via notification dated June 19, 2025. An affidavit filed on the same date stated that the appointment process for the remaining members and the chairperson was still under consideration.
Taking a dim view of the situation, the court observed, 'The above sequence of events shows that the State Government is deliberately delaying the notification of appointments, despite recommendations being made over three months ago.'
Consequently, the court imposed a penalty of Rs 5 lakh on the state government, directing that it be deposited in the Registry by June 25, 2025.
The bench also ordered that the necessary appointment notifications be issued by the same date. In the event of non-compliance, the Chief Secretary has been directed to appear in person before the court.
Senior advocate Peeyush Sharma, representing the petitioner, had told The Indian Express, 'The division bench has firmly instructed the state government to file its replies by June 25. Although the government informed the bench that a HPRERA member was appointed yesterday (Thursday), the bench questioned why the statutory body's chairperson had not been appointed yet, despite the selection committee, headed by the Chief Justice, High Court, already clearing the name.'
