The petition filed by Pravin P. Wategaonkar questioning the appointment of Shri Manoj Saunik as the Chairperson of the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority. The petitioner argues that Saunik's service record is not "unblemished" due to alleged misconduct, which makes him ineligible for the position as per the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. The court is tasked with determining whether a writ of quo-warranto is applicable, examining the statutory procedures followed during the appointment process and considering the alleged misdeeds against Saunik. The case addresses both the procedural correctness of the appointment and whether a writ of quo-warranto should be issued.

1. Challenge to Appointment:
   The petitioner challenges the appointment of Shri Manoj Saunik as Chairman of the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority, claiming that his past conduct makes him ineligible for the position under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.

2. Statutory Framework:
   The appointment is governed by Sections 20-23 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 and the Maharashtra Real Estate (Chairperson, Members, Officers, and other Employees) (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2017.

3. Main Arguments by Petitioner:

   • The petitioner argues that Saunik’s appointment violates the Act, as only individuals with an unblemished record should qualify. He cites pending corruption investigations and a prior court case concerning a Mumbai-Pune Expressway project to demonstrate misconduct.
   • The petitioner emphasizes that institutional integrity is compromised by such appointments.

4. Respondent’s Defense:
   The state government, through the learned Advocate General, defends the appointment, arguing that the petitioner has not demonstrated any violation of statutory rules. The defense further argues that pending investigations alone do not constitute a "blemish" sufficient to disqualify Saunik.

Para-Wise Facts with Headings:

1. Introduction of Petition:
   Pravin P. Wategaonkar files a Public Interest Litigation under Article 226, challenging the appointment of Shri Manoj Saunik as Chairperson of the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority, requesting a quo-warranto writ for his removal.

2. Challenge to Eligibility:
   The petitioner argues that Saunik’s appointment violates Section 22 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, due to past allegations of misconduct, including a pending Anti-Corruption Bureau investigation.

3. Statutory Provisions:
   The court reviews relevant provisions, including Section 20 (Establishment of the Authority), Section 21 (Composition), and Section 22 (Qualifications of Chairperson), which require appointees to have specific qualifications and an unblemished record.

4. Petitioner's Argument on Misconduct:
   The petitioner highlights instances of alleged misconduct by Saunik, including his role in a tender for the Mumbai-Pune Expressway and a court case that questioned his integrity.

5. State's Defense:
   The Advocate General counters that there has been no violation of statutory provisions, asserting that Saunik’s qualifications and appointment were vetted by a selection committee, and the mere pendency of an inquiry does not imply misconduct.

6. Discussion on Quo-Warranto:
   The court considers whether the issuance of a quo-warranto writ is appropriate. It examines precedents and the scope of such a writ, noting that it can only be issued if there is a violation of statutory rules governing the appointment.

7. Judicial Precedents:
   The court reflects on past Supreme Court rulings, which establish that a quo-warranto writ is limited to determining the legality of the appointment process, not the personal qualifications of the individual.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016: Sections 20-23 (Establishment, Composition, and Qualifications of Authority).
• Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Section 17(A), concerning the investigation of public servants.

Ratio Decidendi:

The court must decide whether the statutory provisions regarding the qualifications of the Chairperson have been violated and if the alleged misconduct by Saunik disqualifies him from holding the position. The case hinges on interpreting the phrase “unblemished service record” under Section 22 and the judicial precedents regarding the issuance of quo-warranto.

Subjects:

Public Interest Litigation challenging the eligibility of a government appointee for a public office under statutory provisions.

PIL, Real Estate Authority, Appointment Eligibility, Quo Warranto, Maharashtra Government, Anti-Corruption