Order Complaint No. 269 of 2024

BEFORE TELANGANA STATE REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 269 of 2024
26th March, 2025
Corum:

Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.), Hon’ble Chairperson
Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, Hon’ble Member
Sri Laxmi Narayana Jannu, Hon’ble Member

Ashok Kumar Das
Flat No 101, Shapur Elite Country
TSIIC Colony, IDA-JDM
Hyderabad, Telangana-500055

…Complainant
Versus

1. Mr. Chaitanya Reddy
S&S Constructions
Plot No. 36 and 37 Shyamlal
Layout Telecom Nagar, Gachibowli
Hyderabad, Telangana 500032
Ph-8008813256, Email: [email protected]
2. Mr. K Srinivasa Rao
Gowtham Sai Infrastructure
3-3-64/5, Sumitra Nagar
Near Yogitha Apartment
Kukatpally, Hyderabad
Telangana-500085

…Respondent(s)

The present matter filed by the Complainant herein came up for hearing on 21.01.2025,
11.02.2025 and 12.03.2025 before this Authority, none appeared for complainant and the
Respondents, further this Authority passes the following ORDER:
2.
The present Complaint has been filed under Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the “RE(R&D) Act” read with Rule 34(1) of
the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as
the “Rules”) seeking directions from this Authority to take action against the Respondents.

3.
The matter was listed for hearing on 21.01.2025, where the Complainant and the
respondents failed to appear. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned, and fresh notices were
issued to the Complainant and the respondents.
4.
On 11.02.2025, as the Respondents neither appeared nor filed a reply and the
Complainant was also absent, this Authority adjourned the matter to the next hearing date for the
filing of the Respondents' reply and directed that fresh notices be issued to both parties.
5.
On 12.03.2025, despite the notice being duly served and the postal acknowledgment
received for Respondent No. 2, both the Complainant and the Respondents failed to appear
before this Authority. The postal record showed that the notice to Respondent No. 1 was returned
un-served, while the notice to the Complainant was confirmed as delivered.
6.
Upon careful consideration of the facts and the repeated absence of the parties, this
Authority is of the view that sufficient opportunities have been provided to both the parties to
appear and prosecute the case. The Complainant’s consistent failure to maintain communication
and appear for hearings demonstrates a lack of interest in pursuing the complaint.
7.
In light of these facts, this Authority deems it appropriate to dismiss the complaint for
non-prosecution.

Sd/Sri K. Srinivasa Rao,
Hon’ble Member
TG RERA

Sd/Sri. Laxmi Narayana Jannu,
Hon’ble Member
TG RERA

Sd/Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.),
Hon’ble Chairperson
TG RERA