ORDER : Vishal Mishra, J. Assailing the order dated 13.04.2022 passed by the Real Estate Regulatory Authority as well as the order dated 14.06.2022 passed by the Appellate Authority, the present petition has been filed. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is a Partnership Firm, having registration No.01/01/010028/19 which is engaged mainly in the business of commercial and residential real estate development and constructions works. Shri Sanjeev Agrawal being one of its partner is authorised through resolution dated 15.06.2022 to file this petition on behalf of the firm. The Government of India through its department of Housing and Urban Affairs has launched the ambitious smart cities mission, which initiative, is a time bound advancement and redevelopment endeavor, sharply focused on generating opportunities of growth by imbuing the substantial socio-cultural framework of the city with up-to-the-minute technology and futuristic planning. 3. Considering the aforesaid, the Bhopal Smart City Project was launched vide Resolution No.F-10-22/2016/18-2 dated 10.03.2016. The composition of the Special Purpose Vehicle for Bhopal Municipal Corporation was approved by the Government of Madhya Pradesh, in pursuance to which Bhopal Smart City Development Corporation Limited/respondent No.1 was established on 14.03.2016 under the Companies Act, 2013 which is owned and managed by the Government of M.P. through its Urban Development Company Limited and Bhopal Municipal Corporation. The respondent No.2 is an authority created under the provisions of Real Estate (Regulation and Development) (RERA) Act, 2016 with the objective to facilitate the growth and promotion of healthy, transparent, efficient and competitive Real Estate sector. The main function of the respondent No.2/Authority is to register and regulate Real Estate Projects within the State of Madhya Pradesh and to entertain, register, hear and decide the complaints filed by the allottees and promoters with respect to the Real Estate Projects. The respondent No.3 is the Enforcement Officer appointed under the provisions of the amended Rule 27 of the M.P. Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Rules, 2017 who has been given the limited powers to execute and enforce the orders passed by the respondent No.2/Authority. The respondent No.3 is the Enforcement Officer appointed under the provisions of the amended Rule 27 of the M.P. Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Rules, 2017 who has been given the limited powers to execute and enforce the orders passed by the respondent No.2/Authority. The respondent No.1 has undertaken the Area Based Development (ABD) Area Project, on an area of around 342 acres of land situated in North & South T.T. Nagar Area of the city of Bhopal, which has been allotted to it by the Government of M.P. which is the Real Estate Project which is defined under Section 2 (zn) of the Act and the respondent No.1 is covered under the definition of "Promoter" as defined under Section 2 (zk) of the Act. The respondent No.1 floated NIT inviting applications for allotment of various plots in project by online bidding process namely plot No.82 was floated in the month of November, 2020. The petitioner in all good faith presuming that the respondent No.1 has complied with all the mandatory requirements of law, applied for allotment of Plot No.82 in the aforesaid "ABD Area Project". He was the highest bidder and his bid was accepted with the sale consideration of Rs.35,11,00,000/- and the concerned commercial Plot No.82 was allotted to the petitioner by the respondent No.1. Letter of Intimation and Demand was issued to the petitioner on 02.02.2021. As per the requirement 25% of sale consideration of Rs.35,11,00,000/- i.e. Rs.8,77,75,000/- was deposited by the petitioner within 60 days from the date of issuance of LOID. Further an amount equivalent to 2.5% of the reserve price amounting to Rs.73,68,000/- was deposited by the petitioner against security deposit which as per the provisions of Request for Proposal (RFP) has to be adjusted with the final payment. Thus, total amount approximately 27% of the sale price has already been deposited by the petitioner. Remaining 75% of the final payment has to be deposited within 180 days of the issuance of LOID. It is argued that in the pre-bid meeting the respondent No.1 has assured that the project shall be completed within 180 days and prior to execution of sale deed completion certificate shall be obtained and thereafter the Sale/Conveyance deed shall be executed in favour of respective buyers including the petitioner. 4. It is argued that in the pre-bid meeting the respondent No.1 has assured that the project shall be completed within 180 days and prior to execution of sale deed completion certificate shall be obtained and thereafter the Sale/Conveyance deed shall be executed in favour of respective buyers including the petitioner. 4. It is argued that after allotment of Plot No.82 to the petitioner, without any intimation to the petitioner and other allottees, the respondent No.1 registered a small portion consisting of only 4 (four) plots out of total 342 acres of "ABD Area Project" with the Authority in the name of "ABD Land Parcel Phase-1". No intimation in this regard was given by the respondent No.1 to the petitioner with respect to the aforesaid phase wise registration. Neither the tender was floated nor any proceedings were drawn up by the authorities and without following due procedure the said allotment was done. The petitioner was never informed that the said "ABD Area Project" would be divided into various phases or that the Plot No.82 would be included in "ABD Land Parcel Phase-I" Project comprising of only 4 plots. The Letter of Intimation and Demand (LOID) issued on 02.02.2021 does not contain any such condition. Even the tender floated by the authorities were not having any such condition. It is argued that the RFP document clearly mentions that Plot No.82 would have a direct access from a 45 meter wide road on its southern side. The site map showed that this road would serve as main approach to the plot, and the Floor Area Ratio i.e (FAR) of 1:2.5 with a height of 75 meters was based on this access, in terms of M.P.Bhumi Vikas Rules, 2012. Additionally layout plan of 12 Meter wide roads on east and west of the plot would connect to 45 meters wide road, ensuring smooth access. When the petitioner visited the site it was found that 45 meters wide road was blocked by cycling/jogging track, underground utilities, sewage and drainage line and raised footpath (about 2 feet height). Due to these constructions, there was no direct access to 45 meter wide road, as originally shown by the respondents. Even the 12 meter wide road on the East and West has not been connected to 45 meters wide road, meaning thereby, the plot in question was having no proper approach road at all. Due to these constructions, there was no direct access to 45 meter wide road, as originally shown by the respondents. Even the 12 meter wide road on the East and West has not been connected to 45 meters wide road, meaning thereby, the plot in question was having no proper approach road at all. No service road was developed making it impossible for the plot to have direct or indirect access from 45 meter wide road. He immediately made a complaint to RERA authorities, in terms of Section 31 of the Act read with Section 35 of the Act on 02.09.2021. The RERA has finally decided the complaint on 13.04.2022 by the respondent No.3 which is order impugned. Based upon the Commissioner's report, the respondent No.3 concluded that major amenities and facilities including the Underground Utility Corridor, Electric Sub Station, 24 hours Water Supply Arrangement and Water Supply Lines and Sewage Treatment Plant/Automatic Solid Waste System, and ICT Infrastructure etc., have not yet been provided in the project and the approach from 45 meter wide road in the South has not been provided to Plot No.82, despite of the same the respondent No.3 held that the petitioner was contractually liable to pay entire balance consideration, within 180 days of issuance of LOID. An appeal was preferred against the order dated 13.04.2022 to the Real Estate Authority Tribunal in terms of Section 44 (1) of RERA Act which was refused to be registered on the ground that as the respondent No.3 Enforcement Officer has passed an order, no appeal would lie. Under these circumstances, the petitioner was left with no other option except to challenge the same by way of petition. 5. It is argued that during the pendency of the petition, the respondent No.1 vide order dated 07.06.2023 has terminated the allotment which was earlier granted in favour of the petitioner. While passing the termination order, the authorities have failed to consider the aspect that petitioner has already deposited an amount of Rs.8,77,75,000/- as per the terms of RFP and LOID, being 25% of the total amount and amount equivalent to 2.5% of the reserve price amounting to Rs.73,68,000/-. The petitioner was ready to deposit the entire balance amount but the respondent No.1 failed to carry out development work within the time frame as provided in terms of RFP and LOID. The petitioner was ready to deposit the entire balance amount but the respondent No.1 failed to carry out development work within the time frame as provided in terms of RFP and LOID. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be held liable for the same. Even otherwise, the allegations made in the complaint made by the petitioner before the RERA authorities has not been dealt with in proper perspective. The RERA despite observing that 45 meter wide road in south has not yet been provided to Plot No.82 but still held the petitioner liable for contractual obligations. It is argued by the petitioner that the respondent No.1 could not have advertised "ABD Area Project" nor could have marketed or booked or offered for sale or invited any person to purchase any plot in the said project without complying with the mandatory provisions. 6. Section 3 of sub Section (1) of the RERA Act provides mandatory registration of the project. Without registering the project with the authorities, the respondents have straightaway invited applications for allotment of various plots in the project. That apart, after inviting the application with respect to Plot No.82 and the petitioner was declared as successful bidder and issuance of LOID, wherein in compliance to the same, the petitioner has already deposited the substantial amount approximately 27% of the sale price, the respondents authorities have not taken any action to provide access to the plot as well as carrying out the development work. Once the initial work which were to be carried out by the authorities are not being done, coupled with the fact that without intimation to the petitioner, there was an allotment of some portion of the land with some other projects and without any intimation to the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be held liable for unnecessary delaying the project and he cannot be held responsible to fulfill all the contractual obligation, coupled with the fact that complaint made by the petitioner with immediate effect has not been dealt with by the authorities in proper perspective, as the grounds raised by the petitioner were never taken into consideration. 7. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has heavily relied upon the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Devendra Kumar Vs. 7. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has heavily relied upon the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Devendra Kumar Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others reported in AIR 2013 SC 3325 and has argued that initial action is not in consonance with law, the subsequent conduct of the party cannot sanctify the same. A person having done wrong cannot take advantage of his own wrong and plead bar of any law to frustrate the lawful trial by a competent Court. He has further relied upon the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sivanandan C.T. and others vs High Court Of Kerala Writ Petition (Civil) No. 229 of 2017 decided on 12.07.2023, dealing with doctrine of legitimate expectation. He has further relied upon Article 227 of the Constitution of India dealing with power of superintendence of all the courts by the High Court and submits that High Court is having superintendence power over all the courts and can see whether the orders passed by the RERA authority as in the present case were correct or not. Whether the act of terminating the contract of the petitioner was justified looking to the facts and circumstances of the case. He has prayed for quashment of the impugned order passed by the RERA authorities as well as the termination order passed by the respondents with a further direction to permit the petitioner to complete the project in question with respect to Plot No.82 as the petitioner is ready and willing to complete the project and deposit the remaining amount without interest, subject to the conditions mentioned in the initial tender document and LOID regarding development and providing of access to the plot in question be provided by the respondents. 8. Counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 has filed response to the petition and denied the petitioner's contentions. It is pointed out that once the tender has been terminated by the authorities, he is having an alternative remedy of arbitration in terms of the tender document. No relief at this stage can be extended to the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner was issued with LOID on 02.02.2021. It is pointed out that once the tender has been terminated by the authorities, he is having an alternative remedy of arbitration in terms of the tender document. No relief at this stage can be extended to the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner was issued with LOID on 02.02.2021. He deposited 25% of the total sale price on 30.03.2021 i.e. almost 60 days after signing the Letter of Intimation and Demand/agreement to sale and remaining 75% was to be deposited within a period of 180 days of issuance of said LOID. However, the said condition has not been fulfilled by the petitioner. On numerous occasions, application was filed by the petitioner seeking extension of time to comply with the said conditions, the time was extended by the authorities still the petitioner has not complied with the said condition for making the payment, therefore, the authorities were compelled to terminate the contract of the petitioner. Even the complaint made by the petitioner to the RERA authorities were dealt with in detail by the authorities and they were rejected. There is a dispute redressal mechanism provided under Clause 27 of the Contract. Petitioner to avail relief under Clause 27. Under these circumstances no relief can be extended to the petitioner in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. He has heavily relied upon the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty and another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329 and in the case of Mohamed Ali Vs. V. Jaya and ors. (Civil Appeal No.4113/2022) decided on 11.07.2022. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. Admitted facts in the petition are that the respondent No.1 has undertaken the Area Based Development Project on an area around 342 acres of land situated in North and South T.T. Nagar Area of the city of Bhopal regarding 'Redevelopment and Rehabilitation Project' envisaged to be developed as residential and commercial use. Petitioner applied and participated in the bidding process and he was declared successful bidder for commercial Plot No.82 for a total sale consideration of Rs.35,11,00,000/-. Request for Proposal (RFP), layout map and LOID; Letter of Intimation and Demand was issued to the petitioner on 02.02.2021. Petitioner applied and participated in the bidding process and he was declared successful bidder for commercial Plot No.82 for a total sale consideration of Rs.35,11,00,000/-. Request for Proposal (RFP), layout map and LOID; Letter of Intimation and Demand was issued to the petitioner on 02.02.2021. Deposition of first installment of 25% by the petitioner and further amount equivalent to 2.5% of the reserve price were deposited against security deposit in terms of the provisions of RFP. The aforesaid aspect is not disputed in the matter. If the map attached to Plot No.82 granted to the petitioner is seen, then it is apparently clear that direct approach road was to be provided. There was no mentioning of further allotment of the portion of land allotted to the petitioner into four plots under the "ABD Land Parcel Phase-I". There was no intimation given to the petitioner regarding the same at any point of time. The specific argument raised before this Court is that the entire tender proceedings suffers from non-compliance of Section 3 sub-section (1) of the RERA Act as prior registration of the real estate project with Real Estate Regulatory Authority is required and the same is mandatory. The relevant reads as under :- "Section 3. Prior registration of real estate project with Real Estate Regulatory Authority. (1) No promoter shall advertise, market, book, sell or offer for sale, or invite persons to purchase in any manner any plot, apartment or building, as the case may be, in any real estate project or part of it, in any planning area, without registering the real estate project with the Real Estate Regulatory Authority established under this Act: Provided that projects that are ongoing on the date of commencement of this Act and for which the completion certificate has not been issued, the promoter shall make an application to the Authority for registration of the said project within a period of three months from the date of commencement of this Act: Provide further that if the Authority thinks necessary, in the interest of allottees, for projects which are developed beyond the planning area but with the requisite permission of the local authority, it may, by order, direct the promoter of such project to register with the Authority, and the provisions of this Act or the rules and regulations made there under, shall apply to such projects from the stage of registration." 11. If the aforesaid provisions is seen when a registration of the real estate project with the Real Estate Regulatory Authority is required in the matter. The same has not been done in the present case. Therefore, there is non-compliance of Section 3 of the RERA Act. Further Section 13(1) of the RERA Act has also not been complied with which provides that a promoter shall not accept a sum more than ten per cent of the cost of the apartment, plot or building as the case may be, without first entering into agreement to sale and getting the agreement to sale registered with the registration number. However in the present case, since from the very inception at the stage of issuance of LOID, there was a demand for deposition of 25% of the amount and remaining is to be deposited within 60 days. It is not in dispute that out of total amount towards the sale consideration of Plot No.82 allotted to the petitioner, the petitioner has deposited 27% of the amount including the security deposit. The petitioner immediately made a complaint to the RERA authorities. Thereafter, he was informed that the project has been registered with the RERA authorities in the name of "ABD Land Parcel Phase-1" project. However, the said intimation was never made available to the petitioner at the very initial stage. The RERA authorities on receiving the complaint filed under Section 31 read with Section 35 of the RERA Act, has decided the same on 13.04.2022 and has made a specific observation in para 23 and 25 with respect to deposition of more than 25% of amount by the petitioner as well as the fact that the Commissioner report was considered by the respondent No.3 and it was found that major amenities and facilities including the Underground Utility Corridor, Electric Sub Station, 24 hours Water Supply Arrangement and Water Supply Lines and Sewage Treatment Plant/Automated Solid Waste System, ICT Infrastructure etc. have not yet been provided in the project and the approach from 45meter wide road in the south has not been provided to Plot No.82 despite of the same the petitioner was held responsible for its contractual obligations. have not yet been provided in the project and the approach from 45meter wide road in the south has not been provided to Plot No.82 despite of the same the petitioner was held responsible for its contractual obligations. The major grounds which has been raised by the petitioner is that the complaint has not been dealt with the authorities properly and despite observing the fault on the part of the respondents/authorities, they have held the petitioner responsible for the same and rejected the complaint. On appeal being preferred, the same was rejected by the Appellate Authority without considering the arguments and the grounds raised in the complaint. Para 23 of the order dated 13.04.2022 is relevant and the same reads as under :- 12. Further in para 25, the RERA authorities has dealt with the propositions of Section 13 (1) of the RERA Act, 2016 and has observed as under :- 13. A categorical observation has been made by the authorities that petitioner has deposited 25% of the amount which is over and above 10% of the amount which the authorities should have claimed in terms of Section 13(1) of the Act of 2016. The orders passed by the RERA authorities and Appellate Authority was put to challenge by the petitioner by filing this writ petition and during the pendency of the writ petition, an order has been passed terminating the contract of the petitioner. It is a case wherein the authorities on one hand have not complied with the terms and conditions of the agreement and has not completed and developed the plot as per the requirement as far as their part is concerned and on the other hand has held the petitioner liable for non-completion of the project within the stipulated time and has also forfeited the amount deposited by the petitioner. 14. It is strongly argued that the petitioner is having remedy under Clause 27 of the tender document, therefore, the petition cannot be entertained. However, the fact remains that the petitioner from the very initial stage has taken effective steps to challenge the entire proceedings. 14. It is strongly argued that the petitioner is having remedy under Clause 27 of the tender document, therefore, the petition cannot be entertained. However, the fact remains that the petitioner from the very initial stage has taken effective steps to challenge the entire proceedings. In terms of the tender document, the authorities were duty bound to provide the direct approach road to Plot No.82, as well as were required to complete the other development requirements but the same has not been done by the authorities as already observed by the RERA authorities which is reflected from para 23 of the order dated 13.04.2022. Thus, there is total non-compliance on the part of the respondents which is apparent. The petitioner cannot be held liable for not completing the project within the time frame as the authorities are themselves at fault. The document annexed with the tender document provides as under :- DATA SHEET S.No. Description 1 Land Use Commercial 2 Permissible FAR 2.5 3 Permissible Building Height 75 meters 4 Plot Location Plot No.82, ABD Area, T.T.Nagar, Bhopal 5 Plot Area 4,458.50 Sqm / 0.44585 Ha 6 Location Khasra No.1419, 1455 & 1456, Gram Kotra Sultanabaad, Patwari Halka, T.T.Nagar, R.I. Circle - Ratibad, Tehsil Huzur, District Bhopal. 7 Site Location The plot is located at North T.T.Nagar, Bhopal. The Plot Admeasures 4458.50 sq.mtr. and is bounded by properties as below: Eat ABD Land Piece 83 West : ABD Land Piece 80 South 45 Wide Road (Boulevard Street) North: ABD Land Piece 81 15. The aforesaid parameters shown in the data sheet are not available on the spot. 45 meter wide road which is a direct approach road was not made available to the petitioner. The RFP for allotment of allotment of plot on freehold basis, Clause 1.7 is relevant which provides as under :- "1.7 Description of the ABD Area Bhopal is one of the twenty cities to be selected in the first round of smart cities challenge of Government of India (Gol). Bhopal's Area Based Development (ABD) proposal includes redevelopment of 342 acre of North & South TT Nagar, which is also the only redevelopment and rehabilitation project among the100 smart cities selected by Gol. Bhopal's Area Based Development (ABD) proposal includes redevelopment of 342 acre of North & South TT Nagar, which is also the only redevelopment and rehabilitation project among the100 smart cities selected by Gol. The area-based development is proposed to be a state of art smart city in the heart of the city of Bhopal with all modern features in a sustainable manner and would generate more job opportunities. The project area is very well connected to all means of transport like BRTS, Railway station and Airport. Furthermore, it also falls along upcoming MRT axes, with three metro stations within the Plot area, which would play an important role in commercial development and value of this area. Proximity to upper lake and gardens around the city create a connect to the nature and make it a desirable location. The project development is mainly focused along two major existing roads and a proposed 45m Boulevard Street. The Boulevard Street will connect the two proposed commercial nodes at the metro stations. With an approx. investment of 2.500 crores the ABD area has been envisaged to develop with state-of-the-art infrastructure with all the smart features and green technology as per the smart city guidelines. These infrastructures will include 24X7 water supply and power, underground utility corridor, ICT infrastructure, smart street lighting, automated solid waste system, to name a few. 80% of the buildings in the area will be green rated. An integrated command and control centre will monitor and manage the ABD area as well as entire city." 16. From the perusal of the aforesaid, it is apparently clear that the project development is mainly focused on two major existing roads and proposed 45 meters wide road (Boulevard Street). The Boulevard Street will connect the two proposed commercial nodes at the metro stations. However, this 45 meter Boulevard Street is not provided to the petitioner at any point of time. The Boulevard Street will connect the two proposed commercial nodes at the metro stations. However, this 45 meter Boulevard Street is not provided to the petitioner at any point of time. It is the specific case of the petitioner that after allotment of Plot No.82 to the petitioner certain construction work has been carried out by the authorities wherein they have raised certain constructions like cycling track etc., over the property which was allotted to the petitioner which has restricted the direct approach road to Plot No.82 and have constructed cycling/jogging track by raising partition, a underground duct for utilities, sewage and drainage line of the said 45 meter wide road and about 2 feet high raised footpath, due to which neither the Plot No.82 is getting any approach/access from the 45 Meter wide road. The petitioner has also filed certain photographs to demonstrate the same which are not disputed by the respondents by filing the return/additional return. Once the terms and conditions are violated by the respondents themselves then the petitioner cannot be penalised for not completing the project in time, therefore, the impugned orders terminating the contract of the petitioner and forfeiting of the amount deposited by the petitioner is per se illegal. It is hereby quashed. The order passed by the RERA authorities in not entertaining the complaint of the petitioner in proper perspective are also quashed. 17. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that they are still ready to complete the project on as it is basis on the same rates on which the tender was provided to them without imposition of any interest amount. As already observed hereinabove, that on the fault on the part of the authorities, no penalty can be imposed upon the petitioner. 18. Under these circumstances, as the petitioner has shown his willingness to complete the project within a short period, the authorities are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner and grant him another opportunity to complete the project which was provided to the petitioner. The petitioner and the authorities to sit across to decide the terms and conditions and time frame for completion of the project in question in terms of the conditions mentioned in the previous NIT. 19. With the aforesaid, this petition stands allowed and disposed off. No order as to costs.