Kishore Roy Acharjee & Ors. v. State of Tripura & Ors.
Tripura High Court | W.P.(C) No. 437 of 2026 | Decided: 8 September 2026
This is a significant RERA-related writ decision concerning parallel proceedings before T-RERA and the municipal authorities, suppression of material facts, election of remedies, and the scope of discretionary writ jurisdiction.
1. Facts of the case
The petition was filed by four purchasers of ground-floor units in “The Royal Peace Apartment” at Battala, Agartala.
The petitioners complained about certain constructions allegedly made by the developer beyond the sanctioned building plan, principally:
toilets constructed on the northern and southern sides over drains/open areas; and
a brick-wall/tin-shed guard room allegedly obstructing access.
The petitioners sought intervention of the High Court for removal/demolition of the allegedly unauthorised constructions and consequential reliefs.
2. Proceedings before T-RERA and Municipal Authority
An important aspect of the case was that the petitioners had already pursued remedies concerning the same dispute before:
the Tripura Real Estate Regulatory Authority (T-RERA); and
the Agartala Municipal Corporation.
More importantly, an execution proceeding had also been initiated before T-RERA before the writ petition was filed.
The High Court found that this earlier T-RERA execution proceeding had not been disclosed in the writ proceedings.
3. Issue before the High Court
The principal questions were essentially:
Whether the petitioners could invoke the High Court's writ jurisdiction after pursuing proceedings before T-RERA and the municipal authority concerning the same subject matter; and
Whether suppression of the pending/existing T-RERA execution proceeding disentitled the petitioners from obtaining discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.
4. Finding on suppression of material facts
The Court took serious note of the petitioners' failure to disclose the earlier T-RERA proceedings.
Justice Dr. T. Amarnath Goud observed that the petitioners had not approached the Court with “clear hands.”
This was particularly significant because the undisclosed proceeding was not merely an earlier complaint—it included an execution proceeding before T-RERA, which was directly relevant to the relief sought in the writ petition.
The principle is important: a litigant seeking discretionary relief under Article 226 must make full and candid disclosure of material proceedings concerning the same dispute.
5. Election of remedies / parallel proceedings
The Court also considered the principle of election of remedies.
The petitioners had pursued proceedings before T-RERA as well as the municipal authorities and thereafter approached the High Court.
The Court considered that where a party has already elected and pursued a statutory remedy concerning the same cause of action, it cannot ordinarily seek a second parallel remedy while withholding the earlier proceedings from the constitutional court. (Live Law Biz)
Thus, the case illustrates an important distinction between:
availability of a statutory remedy and permissibility of simultaneously pursuing overlapping remedies without disclosure.
6. Ground-floor common toilet
The Court also considered the practical circumstances surrounding the disputed construction.
It noted that the common toilet was situated on the ground floor and was used by persons such as:
security personnel,
caretakers,
plumbers,
electricians, and
domestic workers.
The Court regarded such a facility as a basic necessity and found that the authorities were required to consider the ground realities and competing interests of other occupants before directing demolition. (LawLens)
7. Conduct of the petitioners
The respondents also brought to the Court's attention that the petitioners themselves had allegedly been using residential premises for commercial purposes, including a clinical laboratory and an eye clinic, contrary to the sanctioned use/building permissions.
The Court took this circumstance into account while considering whether the petitioners deserved discretionary relief. (PLEAD & PREJUDICE - Beyond the Brief)
Consequently, the Court was not persuaded to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners.
8. Decision
The High Court dismissed W.P.(C) No. 437 of 2026.
The Court declined to grant the requested directions relating to demolition, further proceedings and compensation.
It additionally imposed costs of ₹10,000 on each of the four petitioners, totalling ₹40,000.
The amount was directed to be paid to the High Court Bar Associations within one month, with the petitioners required to obtain receipts. (LawLens)
9. Ratio Decidendi
A party seeking discretionary relief under Article 226 must approach the High Court with complete candour and disclose all material proceedings concerning the same dispute. Where petitioners pursue parallel proceedings before a statutory authority such as RERA and a municipal authority, and subsequently invoke writ jurisdiction without disclosing a material pending execution proceeding, the Court may decline equitable relief on the grounds of suppression of material facts and abuse/parallel pursuit of remedies.
10. RERA relevance
The judgment is particularly relevant to RERA practitioners because Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 was referred to in the case. (LawLens)
Section 31 provides the mechanism by which an aggrieved person may file a complaint before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority.
The case therefore demonstrates that although RERA provides a specialised statutory mechanism, parties must also consider the consequences of pursuing overlapping proceedings before RERA, municipal authorities and constitutional courts.
11. Practical impact for homebuyers and promoters
The decision carries two important lessons.
For homebuyers:
Before approaching the High Court, all earlier RERA complaints, execution proceedings, municipal proceedings and orders concerning the same dispute should be fully disclosed.
For promoters:
Where a homebuyer invokes multiple forums concerning substantially the same grievance, the promoter can raise the issue of parallel proceedings, election of remedies and suppression of material facts, particularly where an existing RERA proceeding has not been disclosed.
12. One-line legal takeaway
A litigant who pursues parallel statutory proceedings and suppresses a material RERA proceeding may be denied discretionary writ relief, even where the underlying grievance concerns alleged unauthorised construction.
The judgment was delivered on 8 September 2026 in W.P.(C) No. 437 of 2026, and has been reported as 2026 LLBiz HC (TRI) 7 / 2026 Supreme (Online) (Tri) 390. (Supreme Today AI)
