The Supreme Court in Upendra Choudhury Versus Bulandshahar Development Authority & Ors., dated 11.02.21, reiterated that “it would be inappropriate to entertain a petition under Article 32 for more than one reason.

There are specific statutory provisions holding the field, including among them:

(i) The Consumer Protection Act 1986 and its successor legislation;

(ii) The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2016; and

(iii) The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016.

Each of these statutory enactments has been made by Parliament with a specific purpose in view. The 1986 Act as well as the subsequent legislation contain provisions for representative consumer complaints. One or more home buyers can consequently seek relief to represent a common grievance for a whole class of purchasers of real estate. The RERA similarly contains specific provisions and remedies for dealing with the grievance of purchasers of real estate. The provisions of the IBC have specifically taken note of the difficulties which are faced by home buyers by providing for remedies within the fold of the statute. Entertaining a petition of this nature will involve the Court in virtually carrying out a day to day supervision of a building project. Appointing a Committee presided over by a former Judge of this Court would not resolve the problem because the Court will have nonetheless to supervise the Committee for the reliefs sought in the petition under Article 32. Insofar as the remedies of a criminal investigation are concerned, there is reason for this Court not to entertain a petition directly under Article 32 in the present set of facts. Adequate remedies are available in terms of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. The statutory procedures which are enunciated have to be invoked. Adequate provisions have been made in the statute to deal with the filing of a complaint and for investigation in accordance with law. Judicial intervention is provided at appropriate stages by competent courts in that regard. In Devendra Dwivedi v. Union of India and Ors., a three-Judge Bench of this Court [of which one of us was a member] held that, determining “whether recourse to the jurisdiction under Article 32 be entertained in a particular case is a matter for the calibrated exercise of judicial discretion.” It was further held that this remedy cannot be used as a ruse to flood this Court with petitions that must be filed before the competent authorities set up pursuant to the appropriate statutory framework. In view of the statutory framework, both in terms of civil and criminal law and procedure, we are of the view that entertaining a petition under Article 32 would be inappropriate.”