The Jharkhand High Court has issued a directive to the state government, mandating the submission of a definitive timeline for appointing officials to the long-vacant positions within the Jharkhand Real Estate Regulatory Authority (JHARERA). This order was pronounced by a division bench comprising Chief Justice M. S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Rajesh Shankar, emphasizing the urgency of addressing the prolonged vacancies that have impeded the authority's functionality.
The court's intervention was prompted by a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by advocate Shashi Sagar Verma. The petitioner highlighted the absence of a regular Chairman since January 2021 and the vacancy of the Adjudicating Officer's position since November 2022. During this period, JHARERA has been operating under acting chairpersons, a situation that has led to administrative inefficiencies and a growing backlog of cases. According to information obtained through the Right to Information (RTI) Act, there are currently 67 pending cases before JHARERA, including 45 complaints, 16 execution petitions, and 6 miscellaneous matters.
Verma's petition contends that the state's failure to fill these critical positions violates Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law. The petitioner argues that the prolonged vacancies deny litigants timely adjudication of their disputes, thereby resulting in unequal treatment compared to individuals whose cases are heard in fully functional tribunals. This disparity undermines the principle of equal access to justice and erodes public confidence in regulatory institutions.
In support of his arguments, the petitioner cited Rule 19 of the Jharkhand Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017. This rule stipulates that when vacancies for the chairperson or other members of the authority arise or are anticipated, the state government must refer the matter to the Selection Committee in accordance with Section 21 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. The rule underscores the necessity for expeditious appointments to ensure the authority's effective functioning.
Additionally, Rule 21A of the same set of rules mandates that when the position of Adjudicating Officer becomes vacant or is expected to do so, the authority must make a reference to the Urban Development and Housing Department to initiate the appointment process. The petitioner's reliance on these provisions highlights the legal framework designed to prevent such administrative lapses and the state's obligation to adhere to these statutory requirements.
The High Court, acknowledging the gravity of the situation, has directed the state government to submit a supplementary affidavit detailing the timeline for completing the appointment process for the Chairman, Adjudicating Officer, and other vacant positions within JHARERA. This directive aims to compel the state to take immediate and concrete steps to restore the authority's operational capacity and address the concerns raised in the PIL.
The court's order serves as a critical reminder of the state's responsibility to maintain the efficacy of regulatory bodies like JHARERA. By ensuring that these institutions are adequately staffed, the state upholds the principles of justice and administrative efficiency, thereby reinforcing public trust in governance mechanisms. The forthcoming actions by the state government in response to the court's directive will be instrumental in determining the restoration of JHARERA's full functionality and its ability to serve the public effectively.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.