Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a retired District Judge, filed a writ petition challenging the appointment of Respondent No.3, also a retired District Judge, as Chairperson of the Goa Real Estate Appellate Tribunal under Section 46 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. The petitioner contended that the appointment was illegal as the High-Powered Committee did not consider his candidature and that Respondent No.3 lacked the requisite qualifications. The respondents argued that the appointment was made by a duly constituted High-Powered Committee and that the petitioner had no locus standi. The court held that the petitioner, not being an applicant, had no locus to challenge the appointment. On merits, the court found that the High-Powered Committee's decision was valid and that a retired District Judge is eligible for the post. The petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Real Estate Law - Appointment of Chairperson - Section 46 of Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 - Eligibility - The court considered whether a retired District Judge is eligible for appointment as Chairperson of the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal. Held that the High-Powered Committee's recommendation of a retired District Judge is valid as the Act does not require the Chairperson to be a sitting or retired High Court Judge; a retired District Judge with judicial experience qualifies. (Paras 1-44) B) Constitutional Law - Judicial Review - Appointment by High-Powered Committee - The court examined the scope of judicial review of appointments made by a High-Powered Committee. Held that the court should not sit in appeal over the committee's decision unless there is mala fides or violation of statutory provisions; the committee's decision is entitled to deference. (Paras 1-44) C) Constitutional Law - Locus Standi - Challenge to Appointment - The court considered whether the petitioner, a retired District Judge, has locus standi to challenge the appointment of another retired District Judge. Held that the petitioner, not being an applicant for the post, has no locus to challenge the appointment; the petition is not maintainable. (Paras 1-44)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appointment of Respondent No.3, a retired District Judge, as Chairperson of the Goa Real Estate Appellate Tribunal under Section 46 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, is valid and whether the petitioner has locus standi to challenge the same.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The appointment of Respondent No.3 as Chairperson of the Goa Real Estate Appellate Tribunal is upheld.
Law Points
- Appointment of Chairperson of Real Estate Appellate Tribunal
- High-Powered Committee
- Section 46 RERA
- Eligibility of retired District Judge
- Judicial review of appointments
- Doctrine of separation of powers
- Locus standi of petitioner
