He Forum for Popular Collective Efforts (FPCE) has asked the Ministry to take immediate action and urged it to issue guidelines to ensure the independence and impartiality of such forums in all states. It has also requested suspension of all activities of the conciliation forums until such guidelines are in place.
The association, for example, has pointed out irregularities in the Conciliation Forum constituted by the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (It’s exhausting). In a letter to the Ministry, the FPCE has denounced that the forum is very biased in favour of developers, compromising the rights and interests of home buyers.
The homebuyers’ association has raised issues related to the very constitution of the MahaRERA Conciliation Forum, arguing that it exceeds the powers granted by Section 32 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA).
The section allows for the promotion of dispute resolution forums by consumer associations or promoters, but the FPCE claims that MahaRERA has taken authority into its own hands by not only constituting the forum but also playing an active role in it. The Secretary of MahaRERA currently chairs the forum, which the FPCE maintains constitutes a clear conflict of interest.
“The composition of the forum itself is proof of its bias. With only one consumer organisation represented as compared to three developer organisations, and a ratio of two to six individual representatives in favour of builders, the structure of the forum appears to favour developers,” Abhay Upadhyay, president of FPCE, told ET. The association also pointed out the lack of transparency in the criteria for selecting consumer organisations, suggesting that these may have been handpicked to align with the forum’s pro-developer stance. FPCE alleges that complainants are being pressured to participate in the conciliation forum. Those who refuse and choose to lodge their complaints directly with MahaRERA are said to be met with delays and adjournments, with hearings dragging on for years.
“This situation leaves complainants with little option but to resolve disputes through the forum, where they are unlikely to receive fair treatment,” said Upadhyay, who is also a member of the Central Advisory Committee (CAC) of RERA.
The FPCE has also criticised the lack of transparency in the forum’s work.
According to Upadhyay, there is no publicly available information on the outcomes of cases handled by the forum, nor on how many of its orders have been executed against non-compliant developers.
The association argues that this opacity undermines the very purpose of RERA, which is to bring transparency and accountability to the real estate sector.
Furthermore, the FPCE has expressed concern over the broader implications of this forum, pointing out that once a case enters the conciliation process, MahaRERA cannot review it in its entirety, even if the builder fails to comply with the conciliation orders.
This, the association argues, further tips the balance in favour of developers, who can easily circumvent stricter regulatory oversight by participating in the conciliation process.
In addition to its suggestions on conciliation forums, the FPCE has also recommended that a cooling-off period be instituted for RERA officials, barring them from joining real estate companies or associations for five years after leaving office.
The association’s concerns have been exacerbated by the fact that the former MahaRERA chairman, under whose tenure the conciliation forum was set up, has subsequently joined a developers’ organisation.
This has raised questions about the original intent of the forum, as the FPCE claims it was designed to protect the interests of developers rather than homebuyers.
Disclaimer:
The information contained in this post is for general information purposes only. We make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website or the information, products, services, or related graphics contained on the post for any purpose.
We respect the intellectual property rights of content creators. If you are the owner of any material featured on our website and have concerns about its use, please contact us. We are committed to addressing any copyright issues promptly and will remove any material within 2 days of receiving a request from the rightful owner.