Section 56 RERA Read Down to Cover Respondents: Raj HC

Section 56 RERA Read Down to Give Respondents Right to Legal Representation: Rajasthan High Court

Published: 18 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court held that Section 56 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, which lets only an applicant or appellant appear in person or through chartered accountants, company secretaries, cost accountants, legal practitioners or its officers, unfairly shut out respondents (paras 33-38). It declared the non-inclusion of the word ‘respondent’ illegal and read the section down so that it now opens ‘The applicant or appellant or respondent’ (paras 44-46).

Key holdings

The non-inclusion of the word ‘respondent’ in Section 56 of the RERA Act was declared illegal (para 44).

Section 56 stands read down to begin ‘The applicant or appellant or respondent may either appear in person or authorise …’ (para 45).

Respondents now have the same right as applicants and appellants to appear in person or through these professionals or their officers (para 46).

The right to choose a representative is part of audi alteram partem; giving it to one side alone violates natural justice and Article 14 (paras 29, 33, 37).

Case explainer by NyayVidhan: an account of this judgment and the law it laid down, not the court's text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

The petitioner, a chartered accountant, was engaged by the Jaipur Development Authority (JDA) to defend an appeal filed against it before the RERA Appellate Tribunal (paras 2, 9). On 01.08.2018 his written submissions were not taken on record because a chartered accountant was said to be barred from appearing; on 02.08.2018 the Tribunal held his authorisation not maintainable and accepted an advocate's power for the JDA (paras 3, 5). He challenged Section 56 under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 and asked that it be read as covering respondents (paras 6-8). The Union of India defended the provision; the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India supported the petitioner (paras 9, 11).

Court's Findings

The Court noted that Section 56 gives the right of representation only to the applicant or appellant, while Rule 27(5)-(6) of the Rajasthan Rules of 2017, and similar rules framed for Delhi, Chandigarh and elsewhere, let both sides appear in person or through an authorised person (paras 4, 17-19). Section 432 of the Companies Act, 2013 and Section 116 of the CGST Act likewise allow representation (paras 21-23). Representation through these professionals is part of natural justice, and audi alteram partem includes the right to choose one's own legal representative (paras 24, 29). Drawing on A.K. Roy, where a detenu was held entitled to legal representation before the advisory board if the government had it, the Court held that denying respondents this right denies them a fair opportunity to participate and violates natural justice (paras 30-33). Both sides stand equal before the Tribunal or Authority and the Act gives no reason for the differential treatment, so the omission violates the respondent's right to equality under Article 14 and is arbitrary and discriminatory (paras 34-38). Following Independent Thought and Pinki Devi, the Court read the provision down instead of striking it down (paras 38-45).

Legal Principle

Where a statute lets one side of a proceeding appear through chartered accountants, company secretaries, cost accountants or lawyers but denies that right to the other, the differential treatment has no rational basis and denies a fair hearing. The provision may be read down so that both sides enjoy the same right of representation (paras 33-38, 45).

Precedents Relied Upon

A.K. Roy v. U.O.I AIR 1982, SC 710
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 30, 31
If the government or the detaining authority is represented by a legal practitioner before the advisory board, the detenu must have a similar right; a person whose interest is adversely affected by proceedings of serious import is entitled to be heard and to be assisted by a friend.
Independent Thought v. Union of India & Anr. 2017 (10) SCC 800
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 38, 39, 40, 41, 42
If a law violates fundamental rights or is arbitrary or discriminatory, the Court may either strike it down or read it down so that it does not violate the Constitution; the Supreme Court read down Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC.
Pinki Devi v. State of Uttarakhand 2019 SCC Online Utt. 937
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 43
A provision may be read down to save it from unconstitutionality unless the express language of the statute negatives it; the Uttarakhand High Court read down a Panchayati Raj disqualification to apply prospectively.

Statutory Provisions