Supreme Court closes inquiry against MP RERA chief after High Court drops probe

The Supreme Court on September 2 closed the proceedings before it challenging the removal inquiry initiated by the Madhya Pradesh High Court against the chairperson of Madhya Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) [AP Srivastava vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.].

This was after the High Court informed the Supreme Court that it had itself decided to withdraw the inquiry.

A Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta noted that the committee led by the Chief Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High Court had dropped the inquiry proceedings citing procedural lapses.

Therefore, the top court found no reason to continue with the writ petitions filed by the RERA Chairperson and the Authority itself.

The apex court recorded the communication placed before it by counsel for the High Court.

“The High Court has decided to drop the inquiry. In other words, the High Court has taken a decision to recall the show cause notice dated 20-2-2025,” the Court said.

At the same time, the Bench refused to grant liberty to the High Court to reopen or reinitiate the inquiry process. This effectively ended the proceedings against the regulator’s chairperson, who will continue in office.

The case arose after a complaint was filed by a homebuyer against an order of the chairperson refusing criminal prosecution against a builder. Acting on the complaint, the State government had written to the High Court seeking an inquiry for his removal under Section 26 of the RERA Act, 2016 read with Rule 35 of the Madhya Pradesh RERA Rules, 2017.

The chairperson challenged the process before the Supreme Court on the ground that the State had not followed mandatory procedure. He argued that the government failed to conduct preliminary scrutiny, hear his version or prepare charges before forwarding the matter to the High Court. This, he submitted, violated Section 26(2) of the Act and Rule 35 of the Rules.

The petitions also raised a broader issue of protecting the independence of regulatory authorities like RERA from routine political interference. The RERA Authority itself filed a separate petition seeking guidelines to insulate its members from such inquiries.

In March this year, the Supreme Court had stayed the inquiry, holding that the process appeared prima facie contrary to statutory requirements. It then called for responses from the Chief Minister’s office, the Registrar General of the High Court and the Chief Secretary of the State.

When the matter was taken up on September 2, the counsel for the High Court informed the Bench that the Chief Justice-led committee had reviewed the process and found it legally flawed.

Therefore, the committee had recalled the show cause notice issued to the Chairperson and dropped the inquiry altogether, the Supreme Court was told.

Taking this development on record, the Court disposed of both petitions.

“In the wake of the afore-stated developments, we need not now adjudicate the two petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution,” the Bench said.

With this order, the Supreme Court brought an end to the challenge, leaving no scope for the inquiry to be revived.

The petitioners were represented by Senior Advocates Shyam Divan and Samdarshi Tiwari along with advocates Siddharth R Gupta, Mrigank Prabhakar, Sudipto Sircar, Ashish J Matthews, Aman Agarwal, Uddaish Palya, Aniket Mishra and Siddharth Sahu.

The State and the High Court were represented by Additional Advocate General Nachiketa Joshi along with advocates Pashupathi Nath Razdan, Arjun Garg, Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Shantanu Krishna, Astik Gupta, Akanksha Tomar, Yaduven, Sagun Srivastava and Saaransh Shukla.

[Read Order]