Orissa High Court
Vishnu Associates Pvt. Ltd vs State Of Odisha & Others on 31 July, 2026
Author: Sashikanta Mishra
Bench: Sashikanta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.33005 of 2022
(An application under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of
India)
Vishnu Associates Pvt. Ltd.,
Cuttack ..... Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Odisha & Others ..... Opp. Parties
_______________________________________________________
For Petitioner :Mr.S.S. Das, Sr. Advocate
Mr. S. Das, Advocate
For Opp. Parties :Mr.S.N. Patnaik,
[Addl. Government Advocate]
With Mr. G. Mishra and Mr. A.K.
Mohapatra, Advocate (for Opp. Party
Nos. 1 and 3.
Mr. P.S. Nayak, Advocate for Opp.
Party No.2
[Opp. Party No.3]
_______________________________________________________
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
JUDGMENT
31st July, 2026
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.
Being aggrieved by the rejection of its application for
registration by the Odisha Real Estates Regulatory Authority
Page 1 of 21
(for short, ‘ORERA’), the petitioner has approached this Court in
the present writ application.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The petitioner is a company engaged in the
business of developing and constructing buildings of different
types and, as such, deals in all types of movable and immovable
properties as buyer, seller, agent, distributor, etc. It received
approval from the B.D.O., Salipur for its layout plan and group
housing (duplex) project in the year 2016 for a project named,
‘Exotica Garden’. The project envisages construction of 79
duplex buildings, out of which 40 have been constructed so far.
The Orissa Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2017
(for short, the ‘Act’) along with the Orissa Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 (for short, the
‘Rules’) were enacted and came into force w.e.f. 25.02.2017 and
29.08.2017, respectively. As per Section 3 of the Act, it became
mandatory for all ongoing projects on the date of
commencement of the Act, for which the completion certificate
had not been issued, to apply for registration before ORERA
within a period of three months from the date of
Page 2 of 21
commencement of the Act. The petitioner submitted an
application on 03.07.2018, after a delay of about six months,
which was registered as Misc. Case No. 472 of 2018. By Order
dated 07.07.2018, ORERA disposed of said Misc. Case directing
the petitioner to submit application for registration within 30
days and imposed a penalty of Rs.60,000/- for the delay. The
petitioner complied with such order by depositing the penalty
amount and also submitted an application before the ORERA.
After scrutiny of the application, ORERA issued several letters
asking the petitioner to remove deficiencies in the application.
Despite submission of the required documents, the petitioner’s
project was not approved. According to the petitioner, Section 5
(2) of the Act provides for deemed registration if the Authority
neither registers nor rejects the application within 30 days. As
such, the petitioner’s application is deemed to have been
registered from 24.02.2019.
When the matter stood thus, the Government of
Odisha in Housing and Urban Development Department issued
a notification on 15.02.2020 providing for the promoters of real
estate projects to seek approval of the concerned District Urban
Page 3 of 21
Development Agency (for short, ‘DUDA’) where such projects
were already granted approval by the BDOs/PRIs up to
07.06.2018. The petitioner’s case being covered by such
notification, it submitted application in the prescribed Form
before DUDA on 25.05.2020 for grant of approval. The
application was forwarded by the Project Director, DUDA to the
Officer-in-Charge, Town Planning Unit, Cuttack to scrutinize
the building plans/layout plans and undertake the necessary
verification to confirm adherence to structural stability and fire
safety norms and to submit report. The Town Planning Unit, in
its letter dated 04.11.2020, after scrutinising the application of
the petitioner, asked for compliance on as many as 19 points.
The petitioner duly complied with the said deficiencies. The
Town Planning Unit, in its letter dated 04.10.2021, granted
technical sanction and intimated the Project Director, DUDA of
the same. Despite grant of technical sanction, ORERA in its
order dated 27.10.2020 rejected the application for registration
on the ground that more than one and half years had passed
since the issuance of Government Notification. Liberty was
however, granted to the petitioner to apply afresh after
Page 4 of 21
obtaining the plan approval from the competent authority. The
petitioner sought for information under the RTI Act regarding
the status of its application for approval from DUDA and was
informed on 07.06.2022 that the same was under process. The
petitioner submitted a representation to the Project Director,
DUDA on 11.08.2022 with a request to grant approval. Since no
action was taken, the petitioner has approached this Court in
the present writ application seeking the following relief:-
“It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may
be graciously pleased to admit this Writ Petition issue Rule
NISI calling upon the Opposite parties to show cause as to
why the Order dtd. 27.10.2021, Annexure-10 shall not be
quashed and why the Petitioner’s project viz. Exotica
Garden at Champati shall not be registered/approved and
if the Opposite Parties fail to show cause or show
insufficient cause issue writ in the nature of certiorari
quashing Annexure-10 and further issue Writ in the nature
of Mandamus directing the Opposite Party No.2 to act in
accordance with the sanction dtd. 04.10.2021 of the
Opposite Party No.4
And further issue any other Writ/Writs,
Order/Orders and Direction/Directions which this Hon’ble
Court deem fit and proper and the said Rule be made
absolute.
And for this act of kindness, the Petitioner shall
remain ever pray.”
STAND OF ORERA
3. Counter affidavit has been filed by ORERA (Opp.
Party no.2) inter alia stating that the deeming provision under
Page 5 of 21
section 5(2) is not attracted as the application submitted by the
petitioner was not a valid application for non-compliance with
the deficiencies. Time was granted thrice to the petitioner to
cure the defects, but it failed to do so. The petitioner was duly
heard and the application was ultimately rejected for non-
compliance with the deficiencies. It is further stated that
technical sanction granted by the Town Planning Unit does not
amount to final approval by DUDA and hence, cannot be
considered for grant of registration. Without final approval in
Form-II from DUDA, the building plan cannot be treated as
approved by the competent authority for the purposes of
Section 4(2)(c) and (d) of the Act. It is also stated that the
petitioner has already sold 40 duplexes out of 79 planned units
in which the buyers have invested their life savings, in a project
developed on the basis of a building plan approved by the BDO,
Salipur, who had no technical competence to grant such
approval. Therefore, in the public interest as well as keeping in
view the objectives of the Act, the petitioner’s application was
rightly rejected.
Page 6 of 21
STAND OF DUDA
4. Counter affidavit has also been filed by DUDA
(Opposite party Nos. 1 and 3). While supporting the stand taken
by ORERA more or less, it has been stated that the plan is to be
approved as per procedure contained in PR and DW
Department notification. The petitioner did not submit the
necessary documents, for which ORERA rejected the application
on 27.10.2021, granting liberty to the petitioner to apply afresh
after obtaining approval from DUDA. Instead of complying with
such order, the petitioner has filed the present writ application.
In reply to the application under the RTI Act submitted by the
petitioner, it was indicated that the approval of the project is
under process. As the petitioner has not yet taken back its
documents submitted at the time of filing the earlier
application, it can be presumed that the petitioner is no longer
interested in the registration of the company. The petitioner did
not file the application for approval with the required
documents and deposited Rs.1,00,300/- on 17.09.2002 before
the Champati Gram Panchayat Office towards approval of
building plan and to issue an NOC in its favour.
Page 7 of 21
APPEARANCE
5. Heard Mr. S.S. Das, learned Senior Counsel along
with Mr. S. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,
Mr. A.R. Das, learned AGA for the State, Mr. P.S. Nayak,
learned counsel appearing for the ORERA and Mr. G. Mishra
and Mr. A.K. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for
Opposite party Nos. 1 and 3.
SUBMISSIONS
6. Mr. S.S. Das, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the petitioner, draws attention of this Court to the provision
under Section 5(2) of the Act to submit that the application of
the petitioner having been submitted on 02.07.2018, the same
was required to be either allowed or rejected within 30 days
from the said date. Since neither was done, the project of the
petitioner must be deemed to have been registered w.e.f.
01.08.2018. He further submits that it is not open to the
statutory authority to act in a manner contrary to the statute.
Mr. Das, alternatively argues that even otherwise, the Asst.
Executive Engineer of the Town Planning Unit having accorded
technical sanction of the project, DUDA is guilty of sleeping over
Page 8 of 21
the matter without any justified reason. Despite the pendency of
the application before the DUDA, rejection by ORERA of the
application for registration by the impugned order is completely
illegal and unjustified. As the petitioner could not have
submitted the approval, it cannot be blamed for non-
submission of the order of approval. Even after rejection of the
application by ORERA, the application for grant of approval was
said to be under process by DUDA. According to Mr. Das, the
fundamental right of the petitioner under Article 19 (1)(g) has
been thus violated.
7. Mr A.R. Das, learned AGA would submit that this is
a matter exclusively between the petitioner and ORERA/DUDA,
in which the State Government has no role to play.
8. Mr. P.S. Nayak, learned counsel for ORERA would
argue that the writ application is not maintainable in view of
availability of alternative remedy of appeal, which the petitioner
has not invoked. On merits, it is argued that the deeming
provision under section 5(2) of the Act is not applicable as the
provision envisages submission of a valid and complete
application, which the petitioner did not submit. The delay in
Page 9 of 21
processing of the application is entirely attributable to the
petitioner. The object of the Act is to protect home buyers,
ensuring transparency, accountability and orderly development
in the real estate sector. Therefore, invoking the deeming
provision in the case of an invalid or incomplete application
would run contrary to the very objective of the Act.
9. Mr. G. Mishra, learned counsel for DUDA would
argue that the petitioner’s application for registration was
rejected by ORERA with liberty to apply afresh after obtaining
approval of the local authority i.e. DUDA. The petitioner’s
application for approval was unable to be considered by DUDA
because of non- rectification of the several deficiencies
contained therein. It is the petitioner who is responsible for the
delay in processing of his application.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS OF THE COURT
10. Having regard to the facts involved and the
contentions raised, it is evident that the present case involves
determination of the following points: –
(i) Whether the writ application is maintainable?
Page 10 of 21
(ii) Whether the deemed registration clause
(Section 5(2)) is applicable in the facts of the
present case?
(iii) Whether the rejection of the application for
registration of the petitioner by ORERA was
justified?
(iv) What relief the petitioner is entitled to?
11. It has been argued that the statutory remedy of
appeal being available in the form of Section 44 of the Act, the
writ application is not maintainable. Section 44 is reproduced
below:-
“44. Application for settlement of disputes and appeals to
Appellate Tribunal
(1) The appropriate Government or the competent
authority or any person aggrieved by any direction or
order or decision of the Authority or the adjudicating officer
may prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal.
(2) Every appeal made under sub-section (1) shall be
preferred within a period of sixty days from the date on
which a copy of the direction or order or decision made by
the Authority or the adjudicating officer is received by the
appropriate Government or the competent authority or the
aggrieved person and it shall be in such form and
accompanied by such fee, as may be prescribed:
Provided that the Appellate Tribunal may entertain
any appeal after the expiry of sixty days if it is satisfied
that there was sufficient cause for not filling it within that
period.
(3) On receipt of an appeal under sub-section (1), the
Appellate Tribunal may after giving the parties anPage 11 of 21
opportunity of being heard, pass such orders, including
interim orders, as it thinks fit.
(4) The Appellate Tribunal shall send a copy of every
order made by it to the parties and to the Authority or the
adjudicating officer, as the case may be.
(5) The appeal preferred under sub-section (1), shall
be dealt with by it as expeditiously as possible and
endeavour shall be made by it to dispose of the appeal
within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of
appeal:
Provided that where any such appeal could not be
disposed of within the said period of sixty days, the
Appellate Tribunal shall record its reasons in writing for
not disposing of the appeal within that period.
(6) The Appellate Tribunal may, for the purpose of
examining the legality or propriety or correctness of any
order or decision of the Authority or the adjudicating
officer, on its own motion or otherwise, call for the records
relevant to deposing of such appeal and make such orders
as it thinks fit.”
12. The order of rejection of the application for
registration was passed under section 5(1)(b) of the Act.
Ordinarily, said order ought to have been challenged before the
appellate authority constituted under section 43 of the Act i.e.
the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal. It is however, well settled
that alternative remedy is not always a bar to exercise of writ
jurisdiction and that the High Court can exercise such
jurisdiction in certain cases, such as a case involving a pure
question of law. Reference in this regard may be made to the
judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Godrej Sara
Lee Ltd. -Vrs- Assistant Commissioner (AA) and others
Page 12 of 21
reported in1 and Executive Engineer SOUTHCO -Vrs.-
Sitaram Rice Mill2.
13. In the present case, the petitioner mainly claims
that its application for registration not having been rejected
within 30 days of submission, must be deemed to have been
registered as per Section 5(2) of the Act. This is disputed by the
opposite parties on the ground that the provision applies only to
a valid application and not to defective ones. Thus, the question
falling for consideration is the applicability of the deeming
provision, which can be treated as a question of law. This is the
main question to be decided in the present case, with the other
questions framed being corollary and consequential. This Court,
therefore, holds that the writ application is maintainable despite
existence of the alternative remedy of appeal.
14. The question whether the deemed registration
clause would be applicable or not shall now be considered. The
petitioner submitted its application for registration on
02.07.2018. On 24.07.2018, ORERA pointed out certain
deficiencies for rectification at the end of the petitioner. This
1 (2009) 14 SCC 338
2 (2012) 2 SCC 108
Page 13 of 21
was followed by similar letters issued on 20.10.2018 and
22.10.2018. The petitioner contends that the application having
been submitted on 02.07.2018 ought to have been disposed of
within 30 days thereafter i.e. by 01.08.2018 either by rejecting
it or by allowing it. Since neither of the course was undertaken,
the application must be deemed to have been registered w.e.f.
01.08.2018. On the contrary, it is argued on behalf of ORERA
that the word ‘application’ can only refer to a valid and complete
application and not a defective one. The petitioner’s application
was found to contain several deficiencies and therefore, by no
stretch of imagination can it be treated as a valid or complete
application. Under such circumstances, the deeming provision
shall not apply.
15. In order to appreciate the rival contentions noted
above, it would be proper to refer to the provision itself, which is
reproduced below;-
“Section 5: Grant of registration.
5. (1) On receipt of the application under sub-
section (1) of section 4, the Authority shall within a
period of thirty days.-
(a) grant registration subject to the
provisions of this Act and the rules and regulations
made thereunder, and provide a registration number,Page 14 of 21
including a Login Id and password to the applicant
for accessing the website of the Authority and to
create his web page and to fill therein the details of
the proposed project; or
(b) reject the application for reasons to be
recorded in writing, if such application does not
conform to the provisions of this Act or the rules or
regulations made thereunder:
Provided that no application shall be rejected unless
the applicant has been given an opportunity of being
heard in the matter.
(2) If the Authority fails to grant the
registration or reject the application, as the case may
be, as provided under sub-section (1), the project
shall be deemed to have been registered, and the
Authority shall within a period of seven days of the
expiry of the said period of thirty days specified
under sub-section (1), provide a registration number
and a Login Id and password to the promoter for
accessing the website of the Authority and to create
his web page and to fill therein the details of the
proposed project.
(3) The registration granted under this
section shall be valid for a period declared by the
promoter under sub-clause (C) of clause (l) of sub-
section (2) of section 4 for completion of the project or
phase thereof, as the case may be”
16. A careful reading of sub-section (2) would suggest
that the authority (ORERA) has to take a decision on the
application submitted within 30 days, either to reject it by
giving reasons or to grant registration. It cannot keep the
application pending beyond 30 days. It has been argued that
the application was not valid because of several deficiencies. In
such event, the application ought to have been rejected outright
Page 15 of 21
instead of granting time to cure the defects. Even otherwise, if it
was felt proper to grant time to the applicant (petitioner) to cure
the defects, such time could under no circumstances exceed the
limit of 30 days. It is well settled that the authority drawing
power from the statute cannot suo motu extend the time
expressly stipulated in the statute. Therefore, the application
ought to have been rejected for being an invalid application
within a period of 30 days. This Court would however, hasten to
add that the above inaction or omission of the ORERA to act
strictly as per the statutory prescription does not by itself clothe
the petitioner’s application with validity to be considered for
deemed registration. This Court fully concurs with the
contention raised that ‘application’ within the meaning of
Section 5 has to be a valid application complete in all respects
and free from deficiencies and incomplete or deficient
application cannot be treated as a valid application. As per
clause (b) of sub-section (1), the application must conform to
the provisions of the Act, Rules or Regulations. There is no
dispute that the application of the petitioner was not defect free
and hence, incomplete. Therefore, this Court is of the
Page 16 of 21
considered view that the deeming provision under section 5(2)
of the Act shall not apply to the petitioner’s application.
17. Coming to question No.3 i.e. justifiability and
propriety of the order of rejection of the petitioner’s application,
this Court has already held that the statute prescribes a 30-day
period for consideration of the application, whereupon it is to be
either rejected or granted. It has also been held that the statue
does not confer any power on the authority to extend the
prescribed period. Therefore, keeping the application pending
for one and half years i.e. till 27.10.2021 and rejecting it on the
ground of delay in disposal cannot be countenanced in law. To
reiterate, the petitioner could at best have been called upon
within the stipulated 30 day period to cure the defects. In case
the petitioner failed to do so, the application ought to have been
rejected latest by the 30th day of its submission rather than
keeping it pending any further. It is well settled that when the
statute prescribes a thing to be done in a particular manner, it
is to be done in that manner or not at all. Reference in this
regard may be had to the case of Nazir Ahmad v. King-
Page 17 of 21
Emperor3. Here, the statute does not provide for enlargement of
time for consideration of application for registration but has
itself capped the period at 30 days. The use of the word ‘shall’
implies that the provision is mandatory. It is well-settled that
where the statute itself provides the consequences of non-
adherence to the time stipulation, it can only be treated as
mandatory. Reference in this regard may be had to the cases of
State of U.P. v. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava4, Rajsekhar
Gogoi v. State of Assam 5and Haridwar Singh v. Bagun
Sumbrui6. As per Sec 5(2), if the application for registration is
not rejected or allowed within 30 days, it entails automatic or
deemed registration from the next day onwards. Therefore, the
application could not have been kept pending beyond 30 days.
Even on merits, this Court finds from a reading of the impugned
order that the application was rejected also on the ground of
absence of the documents envisaged under Section 4(2)(c) of the
Act. From the facts placed before this Court, it is seen that
acting in line with the Government Notification dated
3 1936 SCC OnLine PC 41
4 (1957) 2 SCC 759
5 (2001) 6 SCC 46
6 (1973) 3 SCC 889
Page 18 of 21
15.02.2020, the petitioner submitted application before DUDA
on 25.05.2020. Said application was forwarded to the Town
Planning Unit for scrutiny and report vide letter dated
27.08.2020. The Town Planning Unit, by letter dated
04.11.2020 pointed out several deficiencies in the application
and asked the petitioner to rectify the same. The petitioner
claims to have submitted all the relevant documents in
compliance through its letters dated 24.12.2020 and
22.01.2021. The Town Planning Unit thereafter granted
technical sanction vide letter dated 04.10.2021. As is now
apparent, no action whatsoever was taken by DUDA thereafter.
While the matter stood thus, the order of rejection was passed
by ORERA on 27.10.2021. The order was issued when the
matter was pending before the DUDA. Even as on 07.06.2022,
the application of the petitioner was said to be ‘under process’.
Nothing is forthcoming from the counter affidavit filed by DUDA
as to what final decision was taken on the application of the
petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for DUDA could not
satisfy this Court in this regard at all, which implies that the
application is pending. While both ORERA as well as DUDA
Page 19 of 21
have referred to the so-called objective of the Act to justify their
action/inaction, this Court fails to understand as to how said
objectives would be achieved by keeping the application of the
petitioner pending indefinitely.
18. Taking into consideration all these aspects, this
Court is of the view that the inability of the petitioner to
produce the required approval cannot be attributed to it, but
solely to DUDA. Without considering this vital aspect, ORERA
appears to have rejected the application somewhat mechanically
even though the petitioner cannot be blamed for the delay. This
Court therefore, holds that rejection of the application of the
petitioner by ORERA was neither proper nor justified, apart
from being contrary to the statutory provisions referred above.
19. This takes the Court to the final question as to
what relief the petitioner would be entitled to in the peculiar
facts and circumstances. Since the petitioner’s application for
grant of approval as required by the Government notification
dated 15.02.2020 has not been disposed of by DUDA, the same
is to be considered and disposed of in accordance with law
without any further delay. This Court therefore, directs DUDA
Page 20 of 21
to take a decision on the application of the petitioner within
seven days from the date of production of certified copy of this
order. If approval is granted by DUDA, the petitioner shall be at
liberty to submit application afresh before ORERA for grant of
registration and in such event, ORERA shall deal with the same
strictly as per the procedure laid down under section 5 of the
Act.
20. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
…………………………..
(Sashikanta Mishra),
Judge
The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
31st July, 2026/Pravakar
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: PRAVAKAR NAYAK
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 31-Jul-2026 14:56:42
Page 21 of 21
