Tuesday, December 23, 2025

 THE HARYANA REAL ESTATE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL in Appeal No.622 of 2024 Date of Decision: December 05,2025 Conscient Infrastructure Private Limited Versus Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram


In Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar (2022) 4 SCC 497, Hon’ble Supreme Court, after reiterating the principles laid down in Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. V. Masood Ahmed Khan and others (2010) 9 SCC 496, held that a quasijudicial authority must engage in a thorough examination of the issues and provide a reasoned decision. This is crucial for maintaining the integrity of the adjudicatory process.

Any attempt to justify non-speaking and cryptic order by an affidavit filed during course of appellate proceedings has to be rejected. In Assistant General Manager State Bank of India and another v. Tanya Energy Enterprises through its Managing Partner Shri Alluri Lakshmi Narasimha Varma (Civil Appeal No. 11134 of 2025, decided on 15.09.2025), Hon’ble Supreme Court held that validity of an order, which is under challenge in the proceedings, must be tested on the basis of ground(s) mentioned in it in support thereof; and any additional ground, to support the order under challenge, cannot be allowed to be raised in the reply affidavit or in course of arguments. Relevant paragraph thereof is extracted below for ready reference:


 “35. To refresh our memory, the aforesaid decisions are authorities for the proposition that validity of an order, which is under challenge in the proceedings, must be tested on the basis of the ground(s) mentioned in it in support thereof; and any additional ground, to support the order under challenge, cannot be allowed to be raised in the reply affidavit or in course of arguments. The underlying principle is that an order which is bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out….”


The aforesaid judgment echoes the view earlier expressed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978)1 SCC 405

No comments: