1. Both the appeals are clubbed together for hearing and disposed of by the following common judgment.

2. M.S.A No.44 of 2024: Instant appeal under Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is at the behest of the appellant assailing the legality and judicial propriety of the impugned order dated 27th September, 2024 passed in connection with OREAT Appeal No.96 of 2023 as at Annexure-1 confirmed in Review Petition No.15 of 2023 by order dated 13th November, 2024 by the learned       OdishaReal Estate AppellateTribunal at Bhubaneswar (hence called as ‘the OREAT’) on the ground inter alia that the decision visà-vis the concerned project in question holding the same to be an ongoing one despite issuance of Completion Certification prior to the commencement of the Act with effect from 1st May, 2017 is erroneous and hence, liable to be interfered with and set at naught.

3. M.S.A. No.45 of 2024: Present appeal is at the instance of the appellant challenging the impugned order dated 27th September, 2024 at Annexure-1 passed in OREAT Appeal No.97 of 2023 by the learned OREAT and thereafter, confirmed in Review Petition No.16 of 2024 by order dated 13th November, 2024 on the self-same ground as in the other appeal with the plea that such decision is culpably wrong and hence, deserves to be set aside in the interest of justice.

4. In both the cases, the learned OREAT considering the complaints received from the private respondents held that the action is maintainable, since, the project is an ongoing project in spite of the fact that the same is shown to have been completed prior to the commencement of the Act. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that the private respondents are the allottees, whereas, the appellant is promoter and the complaints were filed against the latter registered as Complaint Case Nos. 23 and 55 of 2019 received by the learned Odisha Real Estate Regulatory Authority (ORERA) under Section 31 of the Act and therein, the maintainability was challenged, which was raised on the ground that the project had been completed prior to the commencement of the Act, inasmuch as, it had received completion certificate prior to 1st May, 2017 and therefore, in terms of Proviso to Section 3(2) of the Act, the same was not required to be registered under the Act. The learned ORERA rejected such a plea of the appellant by orders dated 28th December, 2021 with a conclusion that the complaints are in support of an ongoing project, though, completion certificates has been issued by the competent authority on 17th March, 2015 and since BDA issued a revised plan on 5th November, 2019 and the earlier plain having been modified and no fresh completion certificate was issued by the empaneled Architect relating to the completion as per such revised plan dated 5th November, 2019, the construction in respect of the project had not been completed. By separate orders at Annexure-1, the learned ORERA disposed of the objection of the appellant concluding that the complaints are entertainable. Both the orders dated 28th December, 2021 of the learned ORERA were challenged in OREAT Appeal Nos.16 and 15 of 2022 respectively and the learned OREAT by orders dated 13th February, 2023 as at Annexure-1 remitted the matter back with a direction to the learned ORERA to consider the question of maintainability afresh providing opportunity of hearing to both the sides taking into account the report of the BDA certifying that the project is complete on the completion certificate issued in respect thereof. After such remand, the learned ORERA reconsidered and reheard and by order dated 30th May, 2023 held that the complaints are not maintainable and the project had received completion certificate prior to the commencement of the Act duly certified by the BDA itself. Such order dated 30th May, 2023 were challenged by the private respondents in OREAT Appeal Nos. 96 and 97 of 2023, wherein, the appellant filed counter affidavit supporting the decision of the learned ORERA with the plea that the project is a completed one in terms of proviso to Section 3 (2) of the Act and that the complaints are not entertainable. However, learned OREAT after hearing the parties by orders dated 27th September, 2024 at Annexure-2 held and concluded that the complaints are maintainable with a direction therein to ensure disposal of the same within the stipulated period. Against the orders in appeal, Review Petition Nos. 15 and 16 of 2024 were filed before the learned OREAT but it stood dismissed vide Annexure-4 by orders dated 13th November, 2024 and being aggrieved by the said decisions, the appellant preferred the instant appeals on the ground that the complaints could not have been entertained and hence, such decision is not sustainable in law and also the orders in review with the plea that the project had been issued with the completion certificate and it is no more an ongoing project.

5. According to the appellant, the project received completion certificate prior to 15th May, 2017and it was on 17th March, 2015 and the same was duly accepted by the BDA apparent from its report dated 7th April, 2024 but the learned OREAT erred in disbelieving issuance of such certificate as well as the report without considering the response of the BDA. According to the appellant, the project was completed prior to 1st May, 2017 and the sale deeds were executed before the said date and not only that, the possession of the flats was delivered to the respondents, inasmuch as, the project was otherwise completed but the learned OREAT fell into serious error in holding it to be an ongoing project. The contention of the appellant is that as the project had received the completion certificate prior to 1st May, 2017, hence, it was not required to be registered and even though such was the claim, the learned OREAT held otherwise and brought it within the purview of the Act. It is further contended that such a question was raised by one of the allottees of the project in W.P.(C) No. 19179 of 2021 and therein, this Court had directed the BDA to consider the same followed by a reasoned order, which was complied with and by a decision dated 7th April, 2022, it was concluded that the project is completed prior to 1st May, 2017 with the completion certificate issued in 2015 and when said order was not challenged, the learned OREAT committed wrong in disbelieving such decision with a conclusion reached at holding the project as ongoing project and not a concluded one. When the completion certificate was issued for the project is valid and binding to the parties unless challenged before any authority and declared to be void, it was to be considered for the purpose of determining the registration under Section 3 of the Act. It is also contended that the learned OREAT accepted all the contentions of the appellant while dealing with the appeals, however, allowed the same only on the ground that the completion certificate was not accompanied with fire prevention certificate, even though, it was shown to have been submitted therewith with the conclusion that issuance of such certificate cannot be said to have been in terms of Regulation 67 of the BDA (P& BS) Regulations, 2008 (in short, the Regulations’), however, such a finding is an outcome of misconception of fact and law, for which, review was preferred. With such other grounds stated, the impugned orders in appeal and review have been challenged by the appellant with the plea that it was not an ongoing project, hence, not amenable to the Act but the learned OREAT concluded that the complaints are maintainable and such decision being erroneous, the impugned orders at Annexures-2 and 4 are liable to be set aside.

6. Heard Mr. Maharana, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Agarwal, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for respondent No.2- ORERA.

7. According to Mr. Maharana, learned counsel for the appellant, any project, which has received completion certificate is not registrable under the Act in view of Section 3 thereof and the Apex Court in Newtech Promotors and Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vrs. State of U.P. and others (2021) 18 SCC 1 concluded accordingly. It is also contended that the learned OREAT quite often held that the projects, which received completion certificates are not required to be registered under the Act. It is not stipulated anywhere in the Act, as further contended by Mr. Maharana, learned counsel, that unless the completion certificate along with the fire prevention certificate is produced by way of notice before issuance of occupancy certificate, the project cannot be said to be complete and if such fire safety certificate is not attached thereto and produced before the authority concerned for grant of occupancy certificate, the completion certificate would be invalid, hence, therefore, learned OREAT grossly erred to hold that the validity of a completion certificate is dependent on the documents enclosed with it, which were to be submitted before the BDA for issuance of the occupancy certificate. The contention is that once there is a completion certificate and it is prior to the commencement of the Act, the project is to be held as a completed and not registrable under the Act. Regulation 15(1) of the Regulations stipulates that the Architect/Engineer/Structural Engineer shall certify competition and as per clause(2) thereof, the owner or the Architect if issued a notice in Form-VI stating that the building has been completed in all respect as per the approved plan, it shall have to be held that there is a completion of the project and when such notice is issued prior to 1st May, 2017, the provisions of the Act would not be applicable but if it is later to the cut-off date, the same shall be amenable under the Act and therefore, the notice in Form-VI (Part-I and Part-II) is significant for the purpose of determining applicability of Section 3 of the Act, which has been held by the Apex Court in Newtech Promotors and Developers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) as contended further. According to Mr. Maharana, learned counsel, the NOC from the Fire Safety Authority has no role to play in the determination as to whether the project lies within the purview of the Act or otherwise. It is vehemently contended that the fire safety certificate, in view of Regulation 67 of the Regulations is required for issuance of occupancy certificate, not for grant of completion certificate, inasmuch as, it speaks about notice of completion certificate along with NOC from the Fire Prevention Officer, which the appellant submitted. That apart, the learned OREAT questioned, as to how, the BDA without any explanation concluded the project as a complete one when the completion certificate was issued on 17th March, 2015 without fire prevention certificate but according to Mr. Maharana, learned counsel, such an observation is an error apparent on the face of the record since Regulation 67 of the Regulations does not speak of any such certificate except demanding NOC from the Fire Prevention Officer, which, in the case at hand, the appellant has submitted before the BDA, for which, the latter by report dated 7th April, 2023 concluded that the promoter has furnished such certificate prior to 2016 and herein, without any such response being received from BDA, its report was disbelieved. With the above contention, it is pleaded that the decision of the learned OREAT in the appeals and also review cannot be sustained in law.

8. On the other hand, Mr. Agarwal, learned counsel for respondent No.1 justifies the decision of the learned OREAT and submitted that there has been no any error or illegality committed while concluding that the project, even though, was issued with a completion certificate is an ongoing one. It is also submitted that the learned OREAT examined each and every aspect of the case involved and at last, reached at a conclusion that the project to be amenable to the Act registerable under Section 3 thereof. Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for respondent No.2 supports the contention of Mr. Agarwal, learned counsel for the private respondents to submit that the learned OREAT rightly rejected the objection to the maintainability of the complaints filed against the appellant and correctly held that the project is subservient to the Act.

9. The following are the substantial questions of law formulated for consideration of the Court and are stated hereinbelow.

                  i. Whether learned OREAT is justified to hold the project of the appellant as an ongoing project despite the same having received the completion certificate prior to the commencement of the Act on 1st May, 2017?

                  ii. Whether the findings of learned OREAT disbelieving the report of the BDA by letter dated 17th April, 2022 acknowledging receipt of the completion certificate in respect of the project prior to 1st May, 2017 and its completion before such law came into force is legally tenable?

                  iii. Whether the learned OREAT exceeded in its jurisdiction by delving into the legality and veracity of the completion certificate submitted before the BDA under the provisions of the Orissa Development Authorities Act, 1982?

                  (iv) The finding that the competition certificate cannot be relied upon as the same is not in consonance with Regulation 67 of the Regulations ignoring Regulation 15 thereof by the learned OREAT is sustainable in law?

                  v. Whether the learned OREAT rightly dismissed the review plea of the appellant despite error apparent on the face of the record. Is it correct on the part of the learned OREAT to hold that no objection certificate is issued by the Fire Prevention Officer in connection with the project to be not in consonance with Regulation 67-E of the Regulations?

                  vi. Lastly, whether the impugned orders dated 27th September, 2024 at Annexure- 2 by the learned OREAT while disposing of the appeals are legally justified?

10. According to Mr. Maharana, learned counsel for the appellant, the Act is not applicable as it is retroactive in character and in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Newtech Promotors and Developers Pvt. Ltd. (supra), a project is ongoing or otherwise is determinable with issuance of the completion certificate. It is submitted that in the above decision, it has been concluded that from the scheme of the Act, 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 but at the same time, it shall apply in respect of ongoing and future projects, which are to be registered under Section 3 of the Act and to prospectively follow the mandate of law. So, it is contended that in view of the observation of the Apex Court as aforesaid, the Act would be amenable to a project provided the same has not been completed as on the date of the commencement of the Act and excludes all such projects already completed or in respect of which, completion certificates have been granted by the competent authority and since in the case of the appellant completion certificate is already issued, which was prior to the commencement of the Act, the learned OREAT was at fault to hold that the case is one of an ongoing project, not a concluded one.

11. The maintainability of the complaints was challenged at the behest of respondent No.1 and while considering the same, the learned OREAT remitted the matter back in connection with OREAT Appeal Nos.16 and 15 of 2022 for taking into account the decision of the BDA dated 7th April, 2025 and considering the same, the learned ORERA held that the same are not maintainable for the reason that the completion certificate has been issued in respect of the project which is, thus, held not to be ongoing project but a completed one. The said decision of the learned RERA was questioned once again and as a result, the learned OREAT set it aside and concluded that the complaints are maintainable on the premise that the project did not have the fire safety certificate as on the date of commencement of the Act and hence, to be treated as an ongoing project under the Act.

12. Considering the rival contentions of both sides, the Court in the first place is inclined to make a mention of the following provisions. Firstly, Section 2(q) of the Act defines ‘completion certificate’ and it means, the completion certificate, or such other certificate, by whatever name called, issued by the competent authority certifying that the real estate project has been developed according to the sanctioned plan, layout plan and specifications, as approved by the competent authority under the local law and secondly, Section 2(zf) explains ‘occupancy certificate” as the occupancy certificate, or such other certificate by whatever name called, issued by the competent authority permitting occupation of any building, as provided under local laws, which has provision for civic infrastructure, such as, water, sanitation and electricity.

13. In so far as such issuance of completion and occupancy certificates is concerned, it shall be by the competent authority as mentioned in the Act. The definition of ‘competent authority’ as per Section 2(p) of the Act means the local authority or any authority created or established under any law for the time being in force by the appropriate Government which exercises authority over land under its jurisdiction and has powers to give permission for development of such immovable property. According to Mr. Agarwal, learned counsel for respondent No.1, it is the occupancy certificate which is considered as the completion certificate in the State of Odisha and therefore, by the time, the Act came into force, since the project had no occupancy certificate issued by the competent authority, it shall have to be held as an ongoing project. The said contention has been dealt with by the learned OREAT while disposing of the appeals and concluded that such a plea cannot be accepted. The Court considering the reply of Mr. Maharana, learned counsel for the appellant reaches at a similar conclusion that an occupancy certificate is distinct from a completion certificate and not to be treated as one of the same. So, therefore, the plea of Mr. Agarwal, learned counsel for respondent No.1 as against the reply from the other side with reference to Section 2(q) in juxtaposition to Section 2(zf) of the Act is liable for rejection. A completion certificate indeed issued by the competent authority certifying that the real estate project has been developed according the sanctioned plan, layout plan and specifications as approved by such authority under the local law. Whereas, the occupancy certificate is required before possession of any building of a project having the provisions of proper civic infrastructure like water, sanitation, electricity etc. Both certificates are issued at difference stages of the project and therefore, to claim that an occupancy certificate determines competition of a project in the context of the Act cannot be countenanced.

14. In Newtech Promoters and Developers Private Limited (supra), the Apex Court while dealing with a matter, wherein, the provisions of the Act were discussed at threadbare held and concluded that from the scheme of the Act, 2016, application of the same is retroactive in character. Referring to the above decision, Mr. Maharana, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the project herein was completed prior to 1st May, 2017 when the Act came into force and not only that, all the sale deeds were executed prior thereto and even possession was delivered, it was otherwise complete prior to the commencement of the Act, hence, the learned OREAT wrongly held the same as an ongoing project in complete violation of first proviso to Section 3(1) of the Act. The contention of Mr. Agarwal, learned counsel for respondent No.1 is that when the occupancy certificate has not been issued, at the time when, the Act was introduced in 2017 and when the fire safety certificate was issued long thereafter, the project has to be held as ongoing project and not completed and it was rightly accepted by the learned OREAT with the conclusion that the complaints are maintainable. In response to the above, the submission of Mr. Maharana, learned counsel for the appellant is that the completion certificate is the determining factor to hold a project either complete or ongoing and not issuance of occupancy certificate, which is received at a later stage with the approval of the competent authority. The contention is that a project is considered ongoing only if as on the date when the Act came into force, it was not issued with a completion certificate. The grant of occupancy certificate or otherwise is nothing to do with a project for deciding whether it is an ongoing or completed project, as further contended. According to Mr. Maharana, learned counsel, Regulation 15 of the Regulations, reintroduced with amendment in 2018 deals with the procedure related to completion of construction in respect of a project with the competent authority having allowed the impaneled Architect or Engineer to certify such completion of building and to issue occupancy certificate for residential building, whereas, Regulation 67 thereof stipulates that a notice in Form-VI regarding completion of construction of a multi-storage building is given to the competent authority through the registered Architect or Structural Engineer, who has supervised the construction and at that time, it shall have to accompany the documents listed therein including NOC from Fire Prevention Officer and in the case at hand, there has been due compliance and upon receiving the same, the BDA approved it and therefore, to hold that such completion certificate is invalid is an argument which is totally erroneous and so the conclusion of the learned OREAT. It is contended that NOC as per Regulation 67 of the Regulations from a Fire Prevention Officer is necessary and it has been duly submitted and accepted and in so far as fire safety certificate is concerned, it shall have to the furnished while demanding grant of occupancy certificate and the said aspect was completely lost sight of by the learned OREAT.

15. In fact, the completion certificate and occupancy certificate are issued by the competent authority herein the BDA as per Sections 20 and 20-A of the Odisha Development Authority Act and the latter follows the former which means upon construction of a project completed with the compliance of the provisions of the Regulations, the completion certificate is issued and thereafter, to make it fit for occupation with all the civic infrastructure and amenities available duly certified, the occupancy certificate follows suit. To claim that the issuance of fire safety certificate in 2021 draws the line and determines a project to be ongoing would be incorrect. The learned OREAT has held that the NOC furnished while complying Regulation 67 of the Regulations with an enclosure to the notice in absence of fire safety certificate and the corresponding endorsement at the time of issuance completion certificate dated 17th March, 2015 by the Architect is a falsehood. At the same time, it has been observed that a joint inspection was held with a report dated 24th July, 2019 received in connection with a consumer dispute pending before the State Consumer Redressal Commission in respect of the project with a remark received therein regarding availability of firefighting equipment, landing valves, sprinkler line etc. inside the premises of the project but it had no fire clearance certificate by then and so the conclusion was that the completion certificate had been issued without the required fire safety certificate is a noncompliance of Regulation 67 of the Regulations. From such an observation, it is evident that the firefighting equipments were found in place and at the time of certifying completion, it was supported by an NOC obtained from Fire Prevention Officer as required in view of Section 67 of the Regulations, hence, to conclude that such certificate could not have been issued in absence of fire safety certificate and therefore, the project is an ongoing project would again be incorrect proposition. At the first blush, the Court was inclined to hold that fire safety measures necessary and in absence of any such certificate, the project shall have to be held as not complete but on a deeper examination of the provisions of the Act and Regulations, the real distinction with regard to an NOC and fire safety certificate could be disinterred.

16. A competent authority defined under Section 2(p) of the Act is having the powers to consider issuance of completion certificate and also the occupancy certificate but at the time of considering, whether, construction of the project is complete, necessary paraphernalia under the Regulations shall have to be followed and in the case of the appellant, notice in Form-VI (Part-I & Part-II) was given to the BDA and it was accompanied with an NOC obtained from Fire Prevention Officer sent through a registered Architect and it was approved and followed by issuance of completion certificate in the year 2015 obviously before the commencement of the Act, hence, to hold that the project is not complete but ongoing and thus, amenable to the Act would be inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and the law laid down in Newtech Promoters and Developers Private Limited (supra).

17. To elaborate further, Regulation 15 of the Regulations provides that the empaneled Architect or Engineer is to serve a notice of completion in Form-VI to the authority concerned with an intimation that the building is completed in all respect as per the approved plan and such notice is to accompany NOC from a Fire Prevention Officer along with copies of the plan of the completed building, fee, record of right relating to ownership, evidence with respect to public utility services, sewerage, drainage, water supply, electricity and thereafter, the same is certified subject to satisfaction reached at and if such an exercise is over and the completion certificate is issued at any time before the commencement of the Act, in the humble view of the Court, a project has to be held as complete irrespective of issuance of occupancy certificate thereafter. No doubt, according to the Court, handing over possession of the flats of a multi- storage building to the allottees without occupancy certificate in respect of a project is actionable under law as any such allottees shall have the rights to proceed against the promoter but that by itself cannot be a ground to claim that the project is an ongoing and not complete even after issuance of completion certificate. Section 3(1) of the Act and first proviso thereto stipulates that for ongoing project, if completion certificate has not been issued, the promoter shall make an application to the authority for its registration within the stipulated period, which means, any such project in respect of which such a certificate has been issued prior to the commencement of the Act, it shall be a completed project and absence of a fire safety certificate necessary for grant of occupancy certificate by the competent certificate does not make it an ongoing project amenable to the Act.

18. The completion certificate was in the year 2015 but the same has been held as invalid by the learned OREAT. The record reveal that this Court in W.P.(C) No.19179 of 2021 had directed the BDA to consider whether fresh completion certificate was to be issued as per the revised plan dated 5th November, 2019 and considering the same, by an order dated 7th April, 2022, it was concluded that no further certificate is necessary as such revision in plan was only to regularize the deviations and not to alter or modify the existing structure. The aforesaid decision of the BDA on 7th April, 2022 was not challenged and it has attained finality and under such circumstances, when the BDA held that no fresh completion certificate is required, which, it could have directed in compliance of second proviso to Section 3(1) of the Act, it has to be held that the revised plan was approved to regularize the aberrations which was nothing to do with the alteration or modification of the structure and hence, therefore, the project could not have been held as ongoing and that aspect of the matter was ignored by the learned OREAT. In the considered view of the Court, the contention that the project having received completion certificate on 17th March, 2015 and prior to the Act came into force cannot be brought within the purview of the Act when the decision of the BDA with regard to issuance of completion certificate was not questioned in time after its decision by order dated 7th April, 2022. The Court finds that learned OREAT ought to have taken judicial notice of the fact that the completion certificate was issued and the BDA even affirmed that there is no need of a fresh certificate for the project on account of its revised plan of 2019.

19. To claim that the completion certificate is a fraudulent one, as according to respondent No.1, in the considered view of the Court is unfounded since Regulation 67 of the Regulations was complied with which necessitates notice in Form-VI on completion of construction to the competent authority which is to accompany the documents enlisted therein and considering the same, the BDA having received the it through one of its registered Architect with the above exercise stood completed prior to the commencement of the Act. The list of documents which are to be furnished along with the notice by an Architect includes a copy of the fire NOC and in so far as fire safety certificate is concerned, it was to be submitted in accordance with Rule 13(3) of the Odisha Fire Prevention and Fire Safety Rules, 2017. Regulation 67 of the Regulations does not prescribe submission of a fire safety certificate but an NOC and therefore, to claim that, in absence of any such certificate, the completion certificate is invalid, in the humble view of the Court, cannot be sustained. Admittedly, in the case of the project at hand, the fire safety certificate was issued on 19th August, 2021 after six years from the date of issuance of completion certificate but the same is not a requirement in terms of Regulation 67 of the Regulations and therefore, the learned OREAT was not right and justified to hold that the completion of the project with any such notice and decision of the BDA is invalid deserves interference since to hold that the fire safety certificate was not in place at the time of issuance of completion certificate, hence, the project is not complete is a flawed assumption. It is reiterated that before the occupancy certificate is issued, the compliance in all respect is to be ensured including existence of fire safety measures and at that stage, the fire safety certificate is insisted upon but at the time, when the compliance in terms of Regulation 67 is demanded, an NOC from a Fire Prevention Officer would suffice which is to confirm that the construction of the building has taken place according to the approved plan and specification. The Court is of the view that the fire safety certificate is to be demanded before the possession of the flats is handover to the allottees and the same is a compliance that leads to the issuance of occupancy certificate. Though, it is revealing from the record that possession of the flats was handed over to the allottees in 2017 itself and it was without a fire safety certificate obtained from the competent authority as earlier discussed, such default could be a cause of action to proceed against the promoter. A possession without occupancy certificate becomes invalid and for that, the promoter is liable to be proceeded with according to law but for the purpose of Section 3 of the Act with necessary compliance in terms of the provisions of the Regulations any such issuance of completion certificate with a fire NOC in respect of the project by a decision of the BDA upon receiving such intimation from one of registered Architect duly authorized, it has to be held that the project is no more ongoing but complete. As a necessary corollary, the decision of the learned OREAT for that matter to hold that the completion certificate is not a valid one in absence of fire safety certificate by the time the construction was completed is liable to be set act naught since requirement was for an NOC from a Fire Prevention Officer according to Regulation 67 of the Regulations and while considering the issuance of occupancy certificate to ensure that the project is complete in all respect and fit for occupation. NOC has been issued in respect of the project in 2009 which is considered as one of the listed documents necessarily to the submitted while complying Regulation 67 and not the fire safety certificate which is issued in terms of the Fire Prevention and Fire Safety Rules, 2017. Such demand of fire safety certificate at the time of the issuance of completion certificate, hence, on such ground, the project is incomplete as held by the learned OREAT is again an error apparent on the face of the record for the reason that the completion certificate was issued in 2015, whereas, Rules relating to fire safety arrived in 2017. So, therefore, one can readily infer that for the completion certificate, the required notice was to accompany the enlisted documents besides a fire NOC obtained from Fire Prevention Officer and it could not have been a fire safety certificate in respect of the project. The Court has already rejected the plea that occupancy certificate is to be treated as completion certificate as such an argument is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and therefore, the conclusion that the fire safety certificate was necessary and since it was obtained in 2021 and not before and the project is hence to be held as ongoing by the learned OREAT has to be rejected.

20. In so far as the order of this Court in W.P.(C) No.18799 of 2021 dated 7th December, 2022 is concerned and therein, the observation that Section 2(q) of the Act implicitly requires reference to Section 2(p) thereof and that both the provisions have to be read together while interpreting the word ‘completed’ resulting in the issuance corrigendum by the IGR, Odisha as has been referred to by Mr. Agarwal, learned counsel for respondent No.1 does mean to conclude that a completion certificate is issued by the competent authority in respect of a real estate project and it is with regard to such a project certified to have been developed according to the sanctioned plan, layout and other specifications. Such corrigendum by the IGR, Odisha is to reconcile the position as it was subsequent to the affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No.18799 of 2021 and the same is only to impose restrictions on registration of apartments including the completed projects prior to the commencement of the Act. In fact, the IGR, Odisha had to issue the corrigendum in order to allay confusion that the affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No.18799 of 2021 could declare all such projects having received completion certificate as on the date of commencement of the Act could require registration under Section 3 thereof being treated as ongoing projects. For a specific purpose and with regard to necessary compliances to be taken care of at the time of registration of apartments, such a corrigendum was issued by the IGR, Odisha but it is obviously not to include the completed projects. In that regard, the learned OREAT rightly reached at a conclusion dismissing the plea of Mr. Agarwal, learned counsel for respondent No.1. But, in so far as the project treated as ongoing, in absence of a fire safety security necessary, as per the Fire Prevention and Fire Safety Rules, 2017 and a decision by the learned OREAT overruling the orders of the learned ORERA is not inconsonance with the provisions of the Act. As logical sequitur, the Court has to conclude that the project having been issued with the completion certificate in compliance of the Act and Regulations and admittedly received prior to the commencement of the Act shall have to be held as a complete project and therefore, the decision of the learned OREAT that the complaints filed by the private respondents as maintainable deserves to be quashed upholding the view of the learned ORERA.

21. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly with the discussions hereinabove.

22. Hence, it is ordered.

23. In the result, the appeals stand allowed. As a necessary corollary, the impugned orders dated 27th September, 2024 passed in connection with OREAT Appeal Nos.96 and 97 of 2023 as at Annexure-1 confirmed in Review Petition Nos.15 and 16 of 2023 by orders dated 13th November, 2024 vide Annexure-4 by the learned Odisha Real Estate Appellate Tribunal at Bhubaneswar are hereby set aside.

24. In the circumstances, however, the parties are directed to bear their respective costs.