PRADIP KUMAR SAHA

I was foolish to think: IAS officer Divya Mittal quits, shares note on why msn.com/en-in/money/general/…

AAROGYAM: ARE WE FIGHTING THE WRONG BATTLE? For years, residents of Aarogyam, Haridwar, have been caught in elections, rival management groups, and litigation over one recurring question: Who should control ARWA? I believe we need to ask a more fundamental question: Why should the affairs of ARWA determine the governance and statutory handover of Aarogyam at all? An RWA—Residents Welfare Association—is an association formed by residents. It must not automatically be confused with the duly constituted association/society of allottees or flat owners contemplated for taking over a completed housing project from its promoter. Different groups of residents can associate around their common interests. Therefore, the mere existence or registration of an RWA does not, by itself, answer the much more important question: Which legally constituted body of ALL flat owners is competent to receive the completed project, common areas, assets, and responsibilities from the promoter? This distinction, in my view, was lost very early in the Aarogyam story. ARWA itself was originally formed in 2016 by residents to fight the promoter in the Consumer Forum. Yet on 26 March 2021, Uttarakhand RERA passed an order directing substantial maintenance responsibilities, funds, common facilities, documents, and other matters to be transferred by the promoter, Eminent Infradevelopers Pvt. Ltd., to ARWA. My appeal presently before the Uttarakhand Real Estate Appellate Tribunal challenges the foundation of that arrangement. I contend that Aarogyam was still incomplete, without the necessary completion and conveyance formalities and without the duly constituted flat-owners' body required for the final handover I say should have occurred. My appeal also records that ARWA's registration had ceased in February 2021, before the maintenance transfer became effective from 1 April 2021. And yet an extraordinary amount of subsequent effort has gone into deciding: Which ARWA management is legitimate? Which election is valid? Who should be President? Which group should control ARWA? Even the present dispute has continued along that path. I believe this is where the litigation itself took a wrong turn. A verbally expressed premise before the Deputy Registrar—that there should effectively be only one RWA/association representing Aarogyam—appears to have been accepted and fought over rather than first being challenged on its legal foundation. There was no written order on that proposition that I have seen. The opposing group consequently fought to establish who should legitimately control ARWA, instead of first asking whether ARWA was the legally appropriate body for statutory project handover at all. That distinction changes everything. The real question is not WHO SHOULD RUN ARWA? The real question is: SHOULD ARWA HAVE BEEN PUT IN THIS POSITION IN THE FIRST PLACE? If the project remained incomplete and the promoter's statutory and contractual obligations remained outstanding, changing ARWA's President, conducting another election, or installing another management cannot complete the buildings, rectify construction defects, provide missing amenities, obtain statutory completion documentation, or execute the required conveyance. That responsibility cannot be solved by an election. My appeal, therefore, asks the Appellate Tribunal to return to the root of the problem: require the promoter to resume responsibility, rectify defects, provide promised amenities, and complete the project, followed thereafter by proper handover to the duly constituted body of flat owners with the necessary completion and conveyance formalities. Aarogyam does not need another battle over who controls an RWA. It needs the original project-completion and handover process to be put back on the correct legal and institutional track. That is where I believe the solution must begin. Fix the root cause—not its consequences. #Aarogyam #RERA #UKRERA #Homebuyers #Housing #Governance #RealEstate #Uttarakhand

आरोग्यम रेजीडेंसी, बढेरी ,राजपुतान ,हरिद्वार. बेसमेंट में गंदा पानी भरा है काफी दिनों से जिसकी वजह से गंदगी है, मलेरिया, डेंगू का खतरा बना है। कृपा संज्ञान में ले कर करवाही की जाए/ .@amritaarogyam @pushkardhami @pradeepbatramla @NGTribunal @DM_DEOHaridwar @authorityHRDA

This Independence Day, we want the Prime Minister to address India’s youth. We request the PM to explain what the government is doing for youth regarding education, unemployment, and the cost of living. If you support this, sign the petition: cockroachjantaparty.org/peti…

AAROGYAM: ARE WE FIGHTING THE WRONG BATTLE? For years, residents of Aarogyam, Haridwar, have been caught in elections, rival management groups, and litigation over one recurring question: Who should control ARWA? I believe we need to ask a more fundamental question: Why should the affairs of ARWA determine the governance and statutory handover of Aarogyam at all? An RWA—Residents Welfare Association—is an association formed by residents. It must not automatically be confused with the duly constituted association/society of allottees or flat owners contemplated for taking over a completed housing project from its promoter. Different groups of residents can associate around their common interests. Therefore, the mere existence or registration of an RWA does not, by itself, answer the much more important question: Which legally constituted body of ALL flat owners is competent to receive the completed project, common areas, assets, and responsibilities from the promoter? This distinction, in my view, was lost very early in the Aarogyam story. ARWA itself was originally formed in 2016 by residents to fight the promoter in the Consumer Forum. Yet on 26 March 2021, Uttarakhand RERA passed an order directing substantial maintenance responsibilities, funds, common facilities, documents, and other matters to be transferred by the promoter, Eminent Infradevelopers Pvt. Ltd., to ARWA. My appeal presently before the Uttarakhand Real Estate Appellate Tribunal challenges the foundation of that arrangement. I contend that Aarogyam was still incomplete, without the necessary completion and conveyance formalities and without the duly constituted flat-owners' body required for the final handover I say should have occurred. My appeal also records that ARWA's registration had ceased in February 2021, before the maintenance transfer became effective from 1 April 2021. And yet an extraordinary amount of subsequent effort has gone into deciding: Which ARWA management is legitimate? Which election is valid? Who should be President? Which group should control ARWA? Even the present dispute has continued along that path. I believe this is where the litigation itself took a wrong turn. A verbally expressed premise before the Deputy Registrar—that there should effectively be only one RWA/association representing Aarogyam—appears to have been accepted and fought over rather than first being challenged on its legal foundation. There was no written order on that proposition that I have seen. The opposing group consequently fought to establish who should legitimately control ARWA, instead of first asking whether ARWA was the legally appropriate body for statutory project handover at all. That distinction changes everything. The real question is not WHO SHOULD RUN ARWA? The real question is: SHOULD ARWA HAVE BEEN PUT IN THIS POSITION IN THE FIRST PLACE? If the project remained incomplete and the promoter's statutory and contractual obligations remained outstanding, changing ARWA's President, conducting another election, or installing another management cannot complete the buildings, rectify construction defects, provide missing amenities, obtain statutory completion documentation, or execute the required conveyance. That responsibility cannot be solved by an election. My appeal, therefore, asks the Appellate Tribunal to return to the root of the problem: require the promoter to resume responsibility, rectify defects, provide promised amenities, and complete the project, followed thereafter by proper handover to the duly constituted body of flat owners with the necessary completion and conveyance formalities. Aarogyam does not need another battle over who controls an RWA. It needs the original project-completion and handover process to be put back on the correct legal and institutional track. That is where I believe the solution must begin. Fix the root cause—not its consequences. #Aarogyam #RERA #UKRERA #Homebuyers #Housing #Governance #RealEstate #Uttarakhand