MahaRERA says both physical and virtual hearings available after HC directive on hybrid option
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
The statement follows a recent Bombay High Court directive asking MahaRERA to resume hybrid hearings, underlining that access to justice must include the option of physical presence.
"We have been offering physical hearings as part of our regular functioning for those who opt for it. While virtual hearings are more commonly preferred, we do not deny physical hearings to anyone," a senior MahaRERA official told TOI.
The court's directive came during the hearing of a petition filed by homebuyer Mayur Desai, who approached the high court seeking restoration of hybrid hearings and faster execution of orders pending since March 2024. Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Neela Gokhale observed that "access to justice is not merely about providing virtual access but ensuring that parties also have the right to appear physically."
While MahaRERA's counsel submitted that physical hearings are available upon request, the court expressed concern over the perceived emphasis on virtual-only proceedings when most courts have already resumed hybrid hearings.
It also directed the authority to review its April 2025 circular and standard operating procedures concerning urgent listings, enforcement of orders, case mentions, and pronouncement of reserved orders.
MahaRERA officials said the authority has been conducting in-person hearings regularly. "Over the past six months, 81 complaints were heard physically across seven sessions by the chairperson, and another 19 matters were heard twice in person.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
One matter was heard twice by the full bench," the official said.
In a bid to improve efficiency and accessibility, the authority has introduced several procedural reforms. These include pronouncement of orders through pre-notified cause lists with advance intimation to parties, and attendance duly recorded. Circular No. 34(A), issued on April 8, 2025, permits out-of-turn listing of urgent matters, such as life-threatening illnesses, court-directed cases, or applications for rectification.
Moreover, on MahaRERA's recommendation, the state govt appointed revenue recovery officers in six districts with high pendency through a govt order issued on April 22, 2025.
MahaRERA officials said these steps are part of its broader efforts to build a transparent, efficient, and citizen-friendly grievance redressal system under Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. Over the last six months, MahaRERA had disposed of 3,002 complaints.
"There is demand for physical hearings, mainly from lawyers who practice exclusively in MahaRERA. The rest of the legal fraternity generally prefers virtual hearings due to their convenience. Senior counsels from the high court now frequently appear before MahaRERA virtually, raising the quality of arguments and adjudication," said a homebuyer.
Advocate Godfrey Pimenta, trustee of Watchdog Foundation and a regular participant in MahaRERA-related cases, said online hearings work well for simpler RERA matters but added that more complex matters may require physical hearings for credibility assessment.
"A well-balanced hybrid model ensures dignity, efficiency, and fairness. I've argued RERA cases from Dallas and London—virtual platforms save time, reduce costs, and make document filing easier," he said.
---
**BOX: MahaRERA Complaint Statistics (as of March 2025)**
* **Total complaints filed: 29,222
* **Complaints disposed of: 21,520 (73.64%)
* **Pending complaints:7,702
* **Non-compliance applications filed: 4,865
* **Disposed: 4,596 (94.47%)
* **Pending: 269
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
43 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Delhi govt abolishes NOC, land status report requirements in most cases
The Delhi government has abolished the mandatory requirements for no objection certificate (NOC) and land status report (LSR) for most land registration cases, officials said on Thursday. The move is aimed at enhancing ease of living and ease of doing business, officials said. Under the new system, NOCs and LSRs will now be required only in specific cases governed by legal provisions -- namely Section 8 of the Delhi Lands (Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972, and Section 30 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, an official statement said. In all other instances, permissions from the revenue department will no longer be necessary. Sub-registrars will register documents strictly in accordance with the Indian Registration Act, 1908, only on legally prescribed grounds, the statement said. Chief Minister Rekha Gupta said the government has been working consistently over the past five months to simplify governance and improve service delivery for Delhi's residents. She highlighted that citizens often face unnecessary hurdles and delays at patwari, tehsildar, SDM and DM offices when dealing with land and revenue matters -- even in cases where such documentation is not legally required. People had to wait in long queues for NOCs, causing avoidable inconvenience. This reform is intended to eliminate such redundant requirements, she said. A 'Buyer Beware' clause will be enforced, placing the responsibility on the buyers to verify land status and ownership independently, the statement said, adding that land-related information will be regularly updated and made available on official government portals. To prevent misuse and ensure safeguards against fraud, the government is introducing a range of protective measures, the statement said. Lands falling under Gram Sabha, forest areas, acquisition zones or restricted categories will remain protected, and any fraudulent transactions will attract stringent legal action. Additionally, monitoring systems will be strengthened through the use of GIS technology and an integrated patwari network, it said. By eliminating unnecessary paperwork and bureaucratic red tape, we are making governance more accessible and accountable. This will offer significant relief to the public and enhance trust in the administration, Gupta said.
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
Govt wants to pass sports Bill this session, but Opposition sticks to SIR demand: Can Parliament stalemate end?
With the Union government keen on passing the National Sports Governance Bill in the Monsoon session, members from the Treasury benches suggested Thursday that it could be taken up for discussion and passage early next week. The Opposition, which wanted the Bill to be referred to a Parliamentary committee for detailed study, may agree to participate in the discussions if a 'middle path' is found to end the stalemate over a debate on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar. The Treasury benches as well as a section in the Opposition want the sports Bill to break the deadlock so that both Houses return to normalcy, sources said, adding that informal discussions have taken place on the matter. 'With the government having categorically stated that there will not be any discussion on the election process in Parliament, we have to find a middle path,' said an Opposition leader. Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju has told Lok Sabha that a discussion on SIR can't take place in the House as the matter was pending before the Supreme Court and the rules did not allow a discussion on issues under adjudication. 'But a Bill such as the sports Bill and issues such as tariffs will have a far-reaching impact. There is a feeling among many parties that it will be worth discussing them even while keeping up the protest on SIR,' said a key leader in the INDIA bloc. This leader felt the government could favour a debate on tariffs ahead of the arrival of US negotiators for trade negotiations on August 25. Sports Minister Mansukh Mandaviya, meanwhile, insisted that the sports Bill does not exempt the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) from the RTI Act, but admitted that the Act would apply only if a sports federation uses funds or grants from the government. The BCCI has always resisted coming under the purview of the Act arguing that it's not dependent on government funds, unlike other sports governing bodies. 'The Bill has not kept the BCCI out of RTI. The amendments suggested are just to align the provisions with the mother Act (RTI). As long as government money is not used, financial matters of a federation cannot be brought under RTI. But all other matters related to the federation will be under the Act,' Mandaviya told The Indian Express. 'Everything else, the functions, appointments and powers of every federation will come under the purview of the Act.' When the National Sports Bill was tabled in Parliament on July 23, it had a provision to ensure that all sports bodies recognised by the Bill would be considered public authorities under the RTI Act. However, The Indian Express reported on August 7 that a clause — which stated: 'A recognised sports organisation shall be considered a public authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005 with respect to the exercise of its functions, duties and powers under this Act' — has been omitted from the Bill via an amendment. Sources in the government said they do not want to refer the bill to a Parliamentary committee and delay the process. 'We want the Bill to be passed in this session. The government is ready to discuss it and the Opposition can have its suggestions,' Mandaviya said. Leaders of Opposition parties have written to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla and urged him to refer both the sports Bill and the National Anti-Doping (Amendment) Bill 2025 to a joint committee of Parliament. Although the Bill was listed in Thursday's list of business, sources in the government said it did not want the Bill to be passed amid protests over the SIR. 'There were suggestions that it could be taken up next week in the House or later before the Monsoon session ends,' said a Congress leader. With INDIA bloc leaders set to hold a protest march to the Election Commission office on Monday, the discussion could happen Tuesday, government sources suggested. 'However, a decision on ending the stalemate and cooperating with the government for legislative business is to be taken after consultation with our allies in the INDIA bloc,' added the Congress leader.
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
HC upholds tax on online ticket booking fee
MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Thursday upheld the Maharashtra government's right to levy entertainment tax on convenience fees charged during online ticket bookings, whether or not the platform is owned by multiplexes. HC upholds tax on online ticket booking fee The ruling was delivered by a division bench comprising Justice MS Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain, while hearing petitions filed by the FICCI-Multiplex Association of India and Big Tree Entertainment Pvt Ltd. The petitioners had challenged the state's authority to levy entertainment tax on convenience fees under the Maharashtra Entertainments Duty (Amendment) Act, 2014. The petitioners had challenged the 2014 amendment, which enabled the state to impose a tax on convenience fees collected when tickets are booked online. They argued that entertainment tax should only apply to the base ticket price, and that convenience fees – being a separate charge – should not be added to the ticket value for the purpose of taxation. They also contended that such fees are already taxed under the Finance Act, 1994, a central law, and therefore fall outside the purview of the state's taxing authority. 'What is sought to be taxed is the form of entertainment and admission thereto, which features a movie/film, and there is no dispute that the members of the petitioner No 1 (Multiplex Association) are engaged in the business of featuring movies/films. This is the subject matter of the tax or duty,' the court observed in its ruling. The bench further reasoned that access to a movie requires a ticket, and when such tickets are booked online, the associated convenience fees become a precondition to entry. 'A person cannot buy an online ticket without paying the convenience fees, and consequently, he would not be entitled to entertainment, nor would the theatre owner permit such an individual to enter,' the judges stated. Hence, they concluded that the payment of convenience fees is inherently linked to the right of entry into the entertainment venue. The court also drew a distinction between the Finance Act, 1994, and the Maharashtra Entertainments Duty Act, 2014, noting that while the former imposes a service tax on activities, the latter levies duty on admission to entertainment. 'For calculating the duty, one of the measures of tax to be included is the amount charged as convenience fees,' the court said, thereby upholding the validity of the state legislation.
