JUDGMENT : T.S.SIVAGNANAM ,J. These appeals have been filed by the Army Welfare Housing Organization (AWHO) under Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 (for short, the Act) read with Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) challenging the common impugned order dated 31.10.2019 made respectively in Appeal Nos.56, 54 and 53 of 2019 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tamil Nadu, Puducherry, Andaman and Nicobar Island), Chennai [for short, the Tribunal] reversing the orders dated 21.5.2019 made respectively in complaint Nos.293, 294 and 291 of 2019 passed by the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Tamil Nadu Andaman & Nicobar Islands), Egmore, Chennai [for brevity, the Authority]. 2. By the common impugned order, the Tribunal reversed the orders dated 21.5.2019 passed by the Authority closing the complaints filed by the respective first respondent on the ground that the housing project developed by the appellant in Thazhambur Village, Kancheepuram District was structurally completed under Rule 2(h)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Rules, 2017 (for short, the Rules) and thereby exempting from registration with the Authority and directed the appellant to register the project within 15 days from the date of receipt of the common impugned order dated 31.10.2019. 3. The appeals have been filed by raising the following substantial questions of law: “i. Whether the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal erred in deciding on the powers of the RERA ? ii. Whether the conditions prescribed in Rule 2(h)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Rules, 2017 were satisfied? iii. Whether the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) has the power to condone delay ? And iv. Whether the Limitation Act of 1963 is applicable to all special/general legislations unless expressly excluded?” 4. We have heard Ms. Aparajitha Viswanath, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr.R. Ramasubramaniam, Raja, learned counsel appearing for the respective first respondent in all the appeals and Ms.Varalakshmi, learned Standing Counsel for the Authority. 5. The respective first respondent in all these appeals, who are all ex-servicemen, are purchasers of apartments in the project developed by the appellant. They approached the Authority with the complaints stating that the project had to be registered under the provisions of the Act and sought for appropriate directions. 5. The respective first respondent in all these appeals, who are all ex-servicemen, are purchasers of apartments in the project developed by the appellant. They approached the Authority with the complaints stating that the project had to be registered under the provisions of the Act and sought for appropriate directions. The respective first respondent referred to a communication sent by the Principal Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department and Chairman of the Authority, Chennai to the appellant dated 13.12.2017 stating as follows : “From The Principal Secretary to Government, Housing & Urban Development & Chairman, Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority, (TNRERA), 1st Floor, Tower-II, 60 0119. CMDA, No.1A, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai-8 To M/s.Army Welfare Housing Organization, No.31, Thazambur Village, Near DLF Garden City, Chemmanchery, Chennai “From The Principal Secretary to Government, Housing & Urban Development & Chairman, Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority, (TNRERA), 1st Floor, Tower-II, 60 0119. CMDA, No.1A, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai-8 To M/s.Army Welfare Housing Organization, No.31, Thazambur Village, Near DLF Garden City, Chemmanchery, Chennai Letter No.TNRERA/396/2017-150 dated 13.12.2017 Sir, Sub : TNRERA – project registration with RERA – reg. Ref : (i) Your project at Thazambur Village, Chengalpattu Taluk, Kancheepuram District S.Nos.172/1 and 173. (ii) CTCP Lr.RoC.No.14084/2017/Spl.Cell dated 20.9.2017 2. The CTCP in the letter cited reported that on inspection, it is noticed that the building is partly completed/ not yet started. Accordingly, your project falls under the definition of ongoing project. Under Section 3(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 and Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Rules, 2017, registration of real estate projects with TNRERA is mandatory. 3. Hence, I am to request you to submit application for registration of your project within 15 days from the date of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CMSA.Nos.12 to 14 of 2020 receipt of this letter. The details for filing application are available in our website www.tnrera.in . Yours faithfully, sd/- for Principal Secretary to Govt., H&UD & Chairman RERA” 3. Hence, I am to request you to submit application for registration of your project within 15 days from the date of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CMSA.Nos.12 to 14 of 2020 receipt of this letter. The details for filing application are available in our website www.tnrera.in. Yours faithfully, sd/- for Principal Secretary to Govt., H&UD & Chairman RERA” 6. Hence, I am to request you to submit application for registration of your project within 15 days from the date of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CMSA.Nos.12 to 14 of 2020 receipt of this letter. The details for filing application are available in our website www.tnrera.in. Yours faithfully, sd/- for Principal Secretary to Govt., H&UD & Chairman RERA” 6. In terms of the said communication, the Authority had taken a decision that the project developed by the appellant fell under the definition of 'ongoing project' and in terms of Section 3(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 and Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Rules, 2017, registration of the project with the Authority was mandatory. 7. It appears that the appellant did not challenge the said communication dated 13.12.2017, but submitted a representation dated 19.2.2018 to the Principal Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department and Chairman, Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority that they entered into turnkey contracts with M/s.True Value Homes India Private Limited and obtained DTCP approval No.4802/13 for this project and all six residential towers and club house in all aspects have been completed as per the approved drawings before April 2017 and that the necessary certificates for structural completion in all aspects from the Architect and the Structural Consultant were duly obtained and submitted along with the representation dated 19.2.2018. The appellant further stated that the application for exemption from the registration under the Act was submitted on 10.8.2017 reiterating that the project has been completed in all aspects before the Act came into force. 8. The appellant was aware of the fact that such application for exemption from the provisions of the Act was submitted beyond the time limit and therefore, they sought for condoning the delay of four weeks in submitting the application, take up for consideration the application for exemption and grant relief. The appellant appears to have placed reliance on a communication sent by the Commissioner of Town and Country Planning to the Chairperson (Chairman) of the Authority in ROC.No.4724/2018/CP dated 26.7.2018, which consists of annexures to support their stand that the project was complete in all aspects to qualify for exemption. 9. It is not clear as to when the inspection was conducted in the building and as to whether the allottees/purchasers were put on notice. 9. It is not clear as to when the inspection was conducted in the building and as to whether the allottees/purchasers were put on notice. It is admitted that the project has not been listed out in the list of projects required to be published by the Director of Town and Country Planning in their official website on the 16th day of the Notification of the Rules, which came into force on 22.6.2017 besides publication of the same in the website of the Authority. 10. The appellant pitches their case by referring to Rule 2(h)(iii) of the Rules to state that their project was structurally completed, that they obtained a certificate from the Architect/Structural Engineer and that this was intimated to the Local Planning Authority/Regional Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning. 11. From the records placed before this Court, it is seen that this communication, which was stated to have been sent to the Department of Town and Country Planning was beyond the period of 15 days from the date of Notification of the Rules namely 22.6.2017. Thus, the larger question would be as to whether at all the appellant could rely upon Rule 2(h)(iii) of the Rules claiming exemption. One more important issue, which has been lost sight of is that once the Authority has taken a stand that the project is registerable under the Act and intimated the appellant vide communication dated 13.12.2017, the question of reviewing of such a decision has not been provided for under the provisions of the Act and the Rules. 12. Even assuming that the appellant or the project proponent is able to convince that they complied with the condition stipulated for exemption, if the Authority is of the view that a decision in this regard is required to be taken, then principles of natural justice would require that the allottees/purchasers should be heard before such a decision is taken. Admittedly, this was not done. Therefore, the final orders passed by the Authority dated 21.5.2019 are in violation of the principles of natural justice. 13. Hence, the Tribunal was fully justified in its common impugned order dated 31.10.2019 with regard to the decision on point No.1, which was framed by the Tribunal for consideration. Thus, we hold that the decision rendered on point No.1 is confirmed. 14. 13. Hence, the Tribunal was fully justified in its common impugned order dated 31.10.2019 with regard to the decision on point No.1, which was framed by the Tribunal for consideration. Thus, we hold that the decision rendered on point No.1 is confirmed. 14. The two other points framed for consideration were as to (i) whether the exemption granted to the appellant herein by condoning the delay was tenable and (ii) whether the appeals filed by the respective first respondent herein deserve to the allowed. 15. In the considered view of this Court, once the Tribunal came to the conclusion that there has been violation of the principles of natural justice, the matters could have been remanded to the Authority for a fresh consideration because the Authority dismissed the complaints filed by the respective first respondent herein without hearing them, but solely based on the communication sent by the Commissioner of Town and Country Planning to the Chairman of the Authority dated 26.7.2018. The respective first respondent did not have any opportunity to rebut the statement made by the Commissioner of Town and Country Planning. 16. In this regard, it is relevant to point out about the powers of the Authority to call for information and conduct investigation as adumbrated under Section 35 of the Act, which reads as hereunder : “(1) Where the Authority considers it expedient to do so, on a complaint or suo motu, relating to this Act or the rules or regulations made thereunder, it may, by order in writing and recording reasons therefor call upon any promoter or allottee or real estate agent, as the case may be, at any time to furnish in writing such information or explanation relating to its affairs as the Authority may require and appoint one or more persons to make an inquiry in relation to the affairs of any promoter or allottee or the real estate agent, as the case may be. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, while exercising the powers under sub-section (1), the Authority shall have the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) while trying a suit, in respect of the following matters, namely:— (i) the discovery and production of books of account and other documents, at such place and at such time as may be specified by the Authority; (ii) summoning and enforcing the attendance of persons and examining them on oath; (iii) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents; (iv) any other matter which may be prescribed.” 17. In terms of Sub-Section (1) of Section 35 of the Act, if the Authority considers it expedient to do so, on a complaint or suo motu, relating to this Act or the Rules or the Regulations made thereunder, it may, by order in writing and recording reasons therefor, call upon any promoter or allottee or real estate agent, as the case may be, at any time to furnish in writing such information or explanation relating to its affairs as the Authority may require and appoint one or more persons to make an inquiry in relation to the affairs of any promoter or allottee or the real estate agent, as the case may be. 18. Sub-Section (2) of Section 35 of the Act commences with a non obstente clause, which states that while exercising the powers under Sub-Section (1), the Authority shall have the same powers as vested in a civil court under the CPC. 19. Thus, it is seen that the power conferred on the Authority is akin to a civil court in respect of discovery and production of books of account and other documents at such place and at such time as may be specified by the Authority, summoning and enforcing the attendance of persons and examining them on oath, issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents and all other matters, which are prescribed under the CPC. Therefore, the Authority should bear in mind that the power conferred on it is onerous and the Authority has power to make a thorough enquiry into the matter before a decision is taken. Therefore, the Authority should bear in mind that the power conferred on it is onerous and the Authority has power to make a thorough enquiry into the matter before a decision is taken. This is more so because the Authority has been conferred with suo motu power to call for information and it has to be borne in mind that the provisions of the Act are not only to protect the allottee, but also to protect the promoter or the real estate agent. Thus, the overall perspective and the purpose of the Act should be borne in mind by the Authority before a decision is taken. More importantly, the decision making process should be fair, transparent and should comply with the principles of natural justice. 20. The learned counsel appearing for the respective first respondent submits that Clause (iii) of Rule 2(h) of the Rules is unconstitutional and beyond the provisions of the Act and more particularly Section 3 of the Act and that writ petitions challenging the vires of the said Rule are pending. 21. Be that as it may, we are satisfied that principles of natural justice have been violated, which had been rightly noted by the Tribunal in the common impugned order dated 31.10.2019. Since the Authority had not made any enquiry as required to be done under Section 35 of the Act, the respective first respondent/allottees/ purchasers have been put to great prejudice. The Authority, being the first Fact Finding Body, is required to make a thorough probe into the matter especially when the respective first respondent have taken a categorical stand that the project cannot be brought under the ambit of Rule 2(h)(iii) of the Rules and admittedly, the project was not published in the list of projects, which are to be construed as not ongoing projects in terms of Rule 2(h)(iii) of the Rules. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the matter should be remanded to the Authority for a fresh decision bearing in mind the observations made by this Court in this common judgment. 22. Before parting with the case, we wish to observe that the appellant is an organization formed by the respondents and persons like the respondents. The respondents are none other than the exservicemen, who have served the country. 22. Before parting with the case, we wish to observe that the appellant is an organization formed by the respondents and persons like the respondents. The respondents are none other than the exservicemen, who have served the country. The appellant organization appears to have been established to implement the projects PAN India for the welfare of serving defence personnel as well as retired defence personnel, war widows, etc. As could be seen from the letter written by the appellant to the Authority, they have got a promoter, which is a developer registered in Chennai. The manner, in which, the appellant organization should deal with the matter is slightly different from how a private promoter/developer would deal with such cases. 23. If a project is registered under the provisions of the Act, then there are certain mandatory requirements to be complied with. Equally, the promoter namely the appellant would also have enough protection under the Act. Therefore, a more pragmatic view is required to be taken by the appellant organization than bitterly contesting the matter with their own kith and kin, who served the country and are now retired or who may be even serving. This observation may be taken note of by the officers at the helm of affairs. 24. In the result, the above civil miscellaneous second appeals are partly allowed. The decision rendered by the Tribunal in the common impugned order dated 31.10.2019 with regard to point No.1 is confirmed. The decision rendered by the Tribunal in the common impugned order dated 31.10.2019 with regard to point Nos.2 and 3 framed for consideration is set aside and the matters are remanded to the Authority for a fresh decision after issuing notice to the appellant as well as the respective first respondent and summoning all records from the Planning Authority and if necessary, the Authority shall examine witnesses and record statements by issuing commissions, provide adequate opportunity to the respective first respondent to place materials before the Authority and take an informed decision by recording reasons. Since the matters are pending from 2017, we request the Authority to give priority to these matters and dispose of the same preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this common judgment. No costs. Consequently, the connected CMPs are closed.