ORDER : B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J. This writ petition is filed seeking a direction from this Court to declare the to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Prohibition (A) prohibiting the respondent No.2 from proceeding further with Complaint No.187 of 2024 by declaring that the respondent No.2 has no jurisdiction to entertain, hear or decide Complaint No.187 of 2024 pending before it filed under Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA Act) by the respondent No.4 against the petitioners as being patently illegal, in contravention of Rule 2(J) of the Telangana State Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 (‘RERA Rules’) and (B)consequently dismiss the Complaint No.187 of 2024 pending before the respondent No.2 as not maintainable and (C) pass such other order or orders. 2. The petitioners are absolute owners of the land admeasuring Ac.24.11 guntas in Survey Nos.159/Part and 162/Part, Gopanpally Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana (schedule property). The petitioners applied for building permission from the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) and the same was granted vide Permit No.2581/HO/WZ/Cir-11/2010 dated 08.06.2011 for development of gated community with 105 independent houses along with 6 units for LIG and 6 units for EWS. The building permission was originally valid for a period of 3 years till 07.06.2014, which was later extended for a period of six years as per Rule 19(d) of G.O.Ms.No.168 dated 07.04.2012 and amended Rule 19(d) vide G.O.Ms.No.7 dated 05.01.2016. 3. It is submitted that pursuant to the building permit, the petitioners developed the schedule property land into a layout with plotted area and several plots were sold under registered sale deeds. There is no dispute with respect to sale of plots by the petitioners. Some of the plot owners entered into independent construction contracts with the petitioner No.1 for construction or completion of under-construction villas. The said independent contracts were entered with individuals by the petitioner No.1 alone and therefore, cannot be brought within the purview of Telangana State Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TSRERA). 4. It is submitted that the RERA Act was enacted by the Parliament, which came into effect from 01.05.2016. Section 3 of the RERA Act provides for registration of real estate projects. 4. It is submitted that the RERA Act was enacted by the Parliament, which came into effect from 01.05.2016. Section 3 of the RERA Act provides for registration of real estate projects. The proviso to Section 3 of the Act provides that the projects that are ongoing on the date of commencement of the RERA 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 the RERA Act. As per the RERA Act, the Government of Telangana enacted the RERA Rules, which were published vide G.O.Ms.No.202 dated 31.07.2017. Rule 2(j) of the Rules, 2017 defines ‘ongoing project’. The term ‘ongoing project’ is not defined under the RERA Act. 5. It is submitted that the petitioners’ project ‘Pristine Estates’ is exempt from registration under RERA Act in view of the Rule 2(j) and thereby, the provisions of RERA Act will not apply to the project permitted vide GHMC Building Permit Order No:2581/HO/MZ/Cir- 11/2010, dated 08.06.2011. As the project was approved before 01.01.2017, the provisions of the RERA Act would not apply and therefore, no complaint can be entertained by the respondent No.2 against the petitioners. 6. It is submitted that the respondent No.4 was registered with ill-motive by some of the owners on 21.10.2022. The Respondent No.4 is not representing the owners of entire community of Pristine Estates. The respondent No.4 – association was formed without intimation to all owners with ulterior motive. The members of respondent No.4 are defaulters of payment of maintenance charges and deposits to the owners and to avoid payments they formed into an association and they are liable to pay an amount of Rs.12,72,62,808/- (Twelve Crores and Seventy Two Lakhs and Sixty Two Thousand Eight hundred and Eight Only) towards costs of external electrification and external main water line for the occupied 74 Villas. The respondent No.4 had been demanding its members to pay membership fee even to join the Association, which is against the conditions of the Registered Deeds/Agreements entered between the owner and the buyer. 7. It is submitted that the respondent No.4 filed Complaint No.187 of 2024 before the respondent No.2 making certain allegations against the respondent No.3 and the petitioners. The respondent No.4 had been demanding its members to pay membership fee even to join the Association, which is against the conditions of the Registered Deeds/Agreements entered between the owner and the buyer. 7. It is submitted that the respondent No.4 filed Complaint No.187 of 2024 before the respondent No.2 making certain allegations against the respondent No.3 and the petitioners. In the complaint it is alleged that the petitioners, allegedly, advertised and sold villas in a gated community called ‘Pristine Estates’ with promises of state-of-the-art facilities, but failed to deliver on those promises. The petitioners allegedly kept the water and electricity supply under a commercial rate instead of residential and threatened to cut off the essential services if maintenance fees were not paid. The petitioners and others attempted to form another association of villa owners and demanded backlog maintenance charges, despite the existing association already handling the community's upkeep. The project was not registered with the TSRERA, despite the building permissions expired on 07.06.2014 (3 years from the date of original building permit) and continued to advertise the project. Further, that the Club-House is under a registered lease agreement vide document No.8193/2021 dated 13.08.2021 with certain terms and conditions, with a third-party entity. 8. It is submitted that the petitioners filed a counter before TSRERA questioning the jurisdiction of the respondent No.2 to entertain the complaint filed by the respondent No.4. The RERA Act and RERA Rules are applicable only to real estate projects whose building permissions are approved on or after 01.01.2017 by the Competent Authorities. In other words, the RERA Rules will be inapplicable to projects whose building permissions were approved prior to 01.01.2017 or up to 31.12.2016 and hence, the complaint filed by the Respondent No.4 is not maintainable. It is submitted that despite specific objection regarding jurisdiction of the respondent No.2 raised by the petitioners regarding jurisdiction, the respondent No.2 proceeded with hearing of the complaint and as such, the petitioners were constrained to approach this Court. 9. The respondent No.4 filed counter affidavit, inter alia, stating that the respondent No.1 has passed G.O.Ms.No.60 dated 04.03.2025 along with a Circular No.607/2025/TGRERA dated 04.03.2025 amending the RERA Rules, to be in line with the RERA. 9. The respondent No.4 filed counter affidavit, inter alia, stating that the respondent No.1 has passed G.O.Ms.No.60 dated 04.03.2025 along with a Circular No.607/2025/TGRERA dated 04.03.2025 amending the RERA Rules, to be in line with the RERA. As per amended Rule 1(2) and 2(j) of the RERA Rules, the Real Estate Projects for which the completion certificate has not been issued as on the date of coming into force of the RERA Act and the project where development is going on and for which Occupancy Certificate or Completion Certificate from the Competent Authority has not been issued, are defined as ongoing project. The project of the petitioners ‘Pristine Estates’ has not been issued occupancy/completion certificate and therefore, the grievance of the petitioners is no longer valid. In view of the amendment, this writ petition has become has infructuous. 10. Mr. P. Sri Raghu Ram, learned senior counsel appearing for Mr. K. Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, fairly submitted that in view of amendment to Rule 1(2) and Rul2(1)(j) of the RERA Rules, there is no ambiguity insofar as ongoing project is concerned, which means, a project for which occupancy certificate or completion certificate is not issued by the competent authority. Learned senior counsel further submitted that, admittedly, Pristine Estates was not issued occupancy certificate. Thus, under the new Rules, prima facie, the complaint filed against the developers of Pristine Estates is maintainable. 11. However, learned senior counsel submitted that the complaint of the respondent No.4 was registered on 13.09.2024 and the amendment to the provisions of Rule 21(j) was on 04.03.2025. The complaint is not maintainable on the date when it was filed. Thus, the RERA does not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. What is relevant to be seen is the right vested with the parties on the date of the complaint i.e. 13.09.2024 and as the complaint could not have been entertained against the Pristine Estates, such vested right cannot be divested. Alternatively, learned senior counsel submitted that assuming as per the amended Rules, the complaint is maintainable, it may be left open to the respondent No.4 to file a fresh complaint, which will be defended by the petitioners in accordance with law. 12. Mr. Srinivas Iyengar, learned senior counsel appearing for Mr. Hirendranath, learned counsel for the respondent No.4, submitted that the issue in this lis is no more res integra. 12. Mr. Srinivas Iyengar, learned senior counsel appearing for Mr. Hirendranath, learned counsel for the respondent No.4, submitted that the issue in this lis is no more res integra. The same issue has arisen for consideration before the Supreme Court in NEWTECH PROMOTERS AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH , [ (2021) 8 SCC 1 ] wherein it was held that RERA Act is retroactive and that projects, already completed for which completion certificates are no granted, come within the fold of the RERA Act. 13. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners, in reply, submitted that the judgment in NEWTECH PROMOTERS AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ’s case (1 supra) is not applicable to the present case because it arises under the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2016, wherein the definition of ongoing project is different as compared to RERA Rules. 14. The Supreme Court in NEWTECH PROMOTERS AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ’s case (1 supra) framed “Question No.1: Whether the 2016 Act is retrospective or retroactive in its operation and what will be its legal consequence if tested on the anvil of the constitution of India” and held as under: “ 40. The clear and unambiguous language of the statute is retroactive in operation and by applying purposive interpretation rule of statutory construction, only one result is possible, i.e., the legislature consciously enacted a retroactive statute to ensure sale of plot, apartment or building, real estate project is done in an efficient and transparent manner so that the interest of consumers in the real estate sector is protected by all means and Sections 13, 18(1) and 19(4) are all beneficial provisions for safeguarding the pecuniary interest of the consumers/allottees. … 47. The distinction between retrospective and retroactive has been explained by this Court in Jay Mahakal Rolling Mills v. Union of India [ (2007) 12 SCC 198 ] “8. “Retrospective” means looking backward, contemplating what is past, having reference to a statute or things existing before the statute in question. Retrospective law means a law which looks backward or contemplates the past; one, which is made to affect or facts occurring, or right occurring, before it comes into force. Retroactive statue means a statues, which creates a new obligation on transactions or considerations or destroys or impairs vested rights.” 48. Retrospective law means a law which looks backward or contemplates the past; one, which is made to affect or facts occurring, or right occurring, before it comes into force. Retroactive statue means a statues, which creates a new obligation on transactions or considerations or destroys or impairs vested rights.” 48. Further, this Court in Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. v. Assam SEB [ (2019) 19 SCC 529 ], held as under: “67. Retroactivity in the context of the statute consists of application of new rule to an act or transaction which has been completed before, the rule was promulgated. ... … ... 53 . From the scheme of the Act 2016, its application is retroactive in character and it can safely be observed that the projects already completed or to which the completion certificate has been granted are not under its fold and therefore, vested or accrued rights, if any, in no manner are affected. At the same time, it will apply after getting the ongoing projects and future projects registered under Section 3 to prospectively follow the mandate of the Act 2016.” 15. The definition of ‘ongoing project’ under Rule 2(1)(h) of the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2016, is exhaustive as compared to the definition of ‘ongoing project’ under Rule 2(1)(j) of RERA Rules. However, from a reading of both the provisions, there is no ambiguity that ‘ongoing project’ means a project where development is going on and for which completion certificate has not been issued. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the judgment in NEWTECH PROMOTERS AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ’s case (1 supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. 16. Rules 1(2) and 2(1)(j) of the RERA Rules prior to and after amendment are as under: Sl. No. Rule Prior to Amendment After Amendment 1. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the judgment in NEWTECH PROMOTERS AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ’s case (1 supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. 16. Rules 1(2) and 2(1)(j) of the RERA Rules prior to and after amendment are as under: Sl. No. Rule Prior to Amendment After Amendment 1. Rule 1( 2) These Rules are applicable to all Real Estate Projects whose building perm issions approved on or after 01.012017 by the Competent Autorities viz., UDAs/ DTCP/ Municipal Corporations/ Municipalities/ Nagar Panchayats/ TSI I C. These Rules are applicable to all Real Estate Projects for which the completion certificate has not been issued as on the date of coming into force as stipulated in sub- section ( 1) of sect ion 3 of t he Real Est at e ( Regulation & Development ) Act , 2016 by the Competent Authorities viz., UDAs/ DTCP/ Municipal Corporations/ Municipalities/ Nagar Panchayats / TSI I C. 2 . Rule 2( 1) ( j ) “ Ongoing Project ” means, a Project where development is going on and for which Occupancy Certificate or Completion Certificate has not been issued but excludes such Projects for which building permissions were approved priorto 01.01.2017 by the Competent Authorities viz., UDAs / DTCP / Municipal Corporations / Municipalit ies/ Nagar Panchayats / TSI I Cast he case may be. “ Ongoing Project ” means a Project where development is going on and for which Occupancy Cert ificate or Complet ion Cert ificat e from t he Competent Authority has not been issued as on the date of coming into force as per sub- section ( 1) of section 3 of the Real Estate ( Regulation & Development ) Act , 2016. 17. On a reading of the above amended Rules, it is clear that ongoing project means a project for which occupancy certificate or completion certificate has not been issued. It is not in dispute that Pristine Estates has not been issued occupancy certificate. Thus, with effect from 04.03.2025, as per amendment to the above provisions, Pristine Estates comes within the fold of the RERA Act and RERA Rules. 18. It is not in dispute that Pristine Estates has not been issued occupancy certificate. Thus, with effect from 04.03.2025, as per amendment to the above provisions, Pristine Estates comes within the fold of the RERA Act and RERA Rules. 18. Assuming that the complaint lodged by the respondent No.4 on 13.09.2024 is not maintainable, I do not have any hesitation to hold that, by operation of law, the complaint is now maintainable with effect from 04.03.2025 as per the amendments to Rule 1(2) and Rule 2(1)(j) of the RERA Rules. 19. The contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that the maintainability of the complaint has to be decided with reference to its date of filing even after amendment of the Rules, cannot be accepted. Such contention is hyper-technical and would not sub-serve the real cause of justice. Even if the complaint were to be returned on its date of filing or rejected due to objection of jurisdiction raised by the petitioners, before rules were amended, nothing would prevent the respondent No.4 from lodging a fresh complaint. Therefore, it would not be in the interest of justice to return the complaint and only to be filed under the amended rules. 20. For the above reasons, this Court holds that there are no merits in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners are at liberty to raise all issues including jurisdiction of the respondent No.2 in entertaining the complaint of the respondent No.4, which shall be considered by the respondent No.2, by giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, the respondent No.4 and others concerned parties. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.