In a setback to Mamata Banerjee led Trinamool Congress Party authorities in West Bengal, the Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down a regulation regulating and selling actual property sector within the State holding it to be unconstitutional and repugnant to Centre’s Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act (RERA).
The prime court docket stated that by enacting West Bengal Housing Industry Regulation Act (WB-HIRA), 2017, what the legislature of the State has tried to achieve is to arrange its parallel laws involving a “parallel regime’.
It stated that the State legislature has encroached upon the legislative authority of Parliament which has supremacy throughout the ambit of the themes falling throughout the Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule.
The prime court docket additionally stated a major and even overwhelmingly giant a part of WB-HIRA overlaps with the provisions of RERA and a few of these provisions have been lifted bodily, phrase for phrase and enacted into the state’s regulation.
A bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and M R Shah stated, “we have come to the conclusion that WB-HIRA is repugnant to the RERA, and is hence unconstitutional”.
The bench stated, “We also hold and declare that as a consequence of the declaration by this Court of the invalidity of the provisions of WB-HIRA, there shall be no revival of the provisions of the WB 1993 Act (West Bengal (Regulation of Promotion of Construction and Transfer by Promoters) Act, 1993), since it would stand impliedly repealed upon the enactment of the RERA.”
The bench clarified that its hanging down of the provisions of WB-HIRA within the current judgment won’t, in any method, revive the WB 1993 Act, which was repealed upon the enactment of WB-HIRA as it’s repugnant to the RERA.
The prime court docket in its 190-page verdict took observe of the truth that since its enforcement within the state, the WB-HIRA would have been utilized to constructing initiatives and applied by the authorities constituted underneath the regulation within the state.
“In order to avoid uncertainty and disruption in respect of actions taken in the past, recourse to the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 142 is necessary. Hence, in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 142, we direct that the striking down of WB-HIRA will not affect the registrations, sanctions and permissions previously granted under the legislation prior to the date of this judgment,” the bench stated.
The prime court docket stated that there’s a repugnancy between WB-HIRA and RERA- as a number of provisions of the State enactment are straight in battle with the Central enactment.
“Undoubtedly, as Article 254(1) postulates, the legislation enacted by the State legislature is void to the extent of the repugnancy,” the highest court docket stated.
It added that WB-HIRA has failed to include “valuable institutional safeguards” and provisions meant to guard the curiosity of home-buyers and the silence of the State legislature in vital areas signifies that essential safeguards which have been enacted by Parliament within the public curiosity have been omitted within the State enactment.
“There is, in other words, not only a direct conflict of certain provisions between the RERA and WB-HIRA but there is also a failure of the State legislature to incorporate statutory safeguards in WB-HIRA, which have been introduced in the RERA for protecting the interest of the purchasers of real estate. In failing to do so, the State legislature has transgressed the limitations on its power and has enacted a law which is repugnant to Parliamentary legislation on the same subject matter,” the highest court docket stated.
The prime court docket which disposed of a plea filed by an NGO–Forum for People’s Collective Efforts stated that what the State legislature within the current case has finished is to not enact cognate or allied laws however laws which, insofar because the statutory overlaps is worried is an identical to and bodily lifted from the Parliamentary regulation.
“This plainly implicates the test of repugnancy by setting up a parallel regime under the State law. The State legislature has encroached upon the legislative authority of Parliament which has supremacy within the ambit of the subjects falling within the Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule. The exercise conducted by the State legislature of doing so, is plainly unconstitutional,” the highest court docket stated.
It stated that Parliament envisaged in RERA that its provisions can be along with and never in derogation of different legal guidelines in the intervening time in drive.
“True enough, this provision is an indicator of the fact that Parliament has not intended to occupy the whole field so as to preclude altogether the exercise of legislative authority whether under other Central or State enactments,” the bench stated.
The prime court docket stated that regardless of lifting of the provisions word-by-word and incorporating it within the state enactment, WB-HIRA doesn’t complement the RERA by enacting provisions which can be considered along with or fortifying the rights, obligations and treatments created by the Central enactment.
It stated, “what the legislature of the State of West Bengal has attempted to achieve is to set up its parallel legislation involving a parallel regime” and the overlap between the provisions of WB-HIRA and the RERA is so vital as to depart no method of doubt that the take a look at of repugnancy based mostly on an id of subject material is clearly established.