Prathiba Pathak Vs Tahsildar — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Prathiba Pathak Vs Tahsildar — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim order dated 03.06.2025 vacated, with liberty to seek its restoration on compliance with the payment direction therein; pendency of the petition declared not to obstruct any further proceedings before any Court. The petition was neither allowed nor dismissed in terms; the underlying grievance (alleged denial of hearing due to COVID-19 SOP) was left undecided.

Issue for consideration

Whether the RERA order could be sustained when, according to the petitioners, they were not heard in the matter and it had to be notified to them on account of the COVID-19 standard operating procedure in place. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

The interim order dated 03.06.2025 (by which any auction of the schedule property of the petitioners was stayed) stands vacated, with liberty to the petitioners to seek its restoration upon compliance with the order dated 03.06.2025.

Key takeaways

Pendency of this petition will not come in the way of any further proceedings before any Court.ratio¶52

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (M. Nagaprasanna J.), WP No. 14879 of 2025 (GM-RES), decided 07.07.2025: Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 by a developer and its director challenging the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority's order dated 30.09.2020 in Complaint CMP No. 180303/0000536 directing refund of Rs.18,10,000/- with interest to the complainant, on the plea that they were not heard owing to the COVID-19 standard operating procedure. By order dated 03.06.2025 the Court had directed payment of Rs.10,00,000/- by demand draft on or before 12.06.2025, failing which the petition would not be entertained, and had meanwhile stayed any auction of the schedule property. On being informed that not a rupee had been paid pursuant to that order, the Court vacated the interim order with liberty to seek its restoration upon compliance, and held that pendency of the petition will not come in the way of any further proceedings before any Court.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:24600 WP No. 14879 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 14879 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

PRATHIBA PATHAK

D/O MANJUNATH,

AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT NO.2992/1, NEW NO.27/1, 3RD MAIN ROAD, V V PURAM, DEVARAJA MOHALLA, MYSORE.

PATHAK DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., OFFICE AT NO.2997/2, RUKMA COMPLEX,

KALIDASA ROAD, MYSORE. REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR.

…PETITIONERS

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka

(BY SMT. PRATHIBA PATHAK AND THE DIRECTOR, PATHAK DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., PETITIONERS)

AND:

TAHSILDAR

OFFICE OF TAHSILDAR, MYSORE TALUK, MYSORE.

REGIONAL COMMISSIONER MYSORE DIVISION, HUNNUR ROAD, MYSORE - 570 005.

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:24600 WP No. 14879 of 2025

HC-KAR

KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, 2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK, 3RD CROSS ROAD, CSI COMPOUND, MISSION RD, SAMPANGI RAMA NAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 027.

SMT. SHILPA KAMATH W/O DR. SHASHIDHAR KAMATH, AGED MAJOR, NO. 377, 2 ND MAIN, GOKULAM 3 RD STAGE, MYSORE - 570 002.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SESHU V, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. GOWTHAMDEV C. ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI. S.D.N. PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A. SETTING ASIDE ANY NOTICE / ORDER AS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS PURSUANT TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.09.2020 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 3 IN COMPLAINT BEARING CMP NO. 180303/0000536 BEFORE THE KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE AND REGULATORY AUTHORITY (PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE A) AND ALL PROCEEDINGS ARISING THEREFROM AND ETC.,

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:24600 WP No. 14879 of 2025

HC-KAR

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

This Court on 03.06.2025 had passed the following order:

"Learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to accept notice for respondents 1 and 2.

Sri. Gouthamdev C Ullal, learned counsel is directed to accept notice for respondent No.3.

Learned counsel for the petitioners to serve a copy of the petition papers upon the learned Additional Government Advocate and the learned counsel, forthwith.

The petitioners are before the Court calling in question the order of the RERA which directed the developer to return Rs.18,10,000/- along with interest to the complainant.

The allegation of the petitioners is that they were not heard in the matter and the matter had to be notified to them on account of the COVID-19 standard operating procedure in place.

The learned counsel for petitioners would submit that a cheque for Rs.10,00,000/- would be handed over to the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant. The learned counsel for the respondent would object to the same, on the score that on an earlier occasion as well, a cheque was handed over and it had been dishonoured.

In that light, the learned counsel for petitioners seeks a week's time to produce a demand draft for Rs.10,00,000/- instead of a cheque.

The demand draft for Rs.10,00,000/- shall be paid on or before 12.06.2025, failing which, the petition would not be entertained.

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:24600 WP No. 14879 of 2025

HC-KAR

Till such time, the auction of any kind of the schedule property of the petitioners shall remain stayed. Therefore, list this matter on 12.06.2025 at 3:30 p.m. for further hearing.

Hand delivery of the order is permitted."

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent

submits that not a rupee has been paid, pursuant to the order passed by this Court. Therefore, the petition does not deserve any further indulgence.

The interim order stands vacated with liberty to seek its restoration on compliance with the order dated 03.06.2025.

Pendency of this petition will not come in the way of

any further proceedings before any Court.

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 135 CT: BHK