Contesting petitioners' contention, they argued it was not a case of retrospective application of the law, as the ongoing projects were neither complete nor settled. "In conversations, the term 'retrospective' has been loosely used to mean 'ongoing projects that have not received completion certificate' are covered," the affidavit by under secretary of Union ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs Sailesh Jogani mentioned. It added that Section 3(1) provided that all projects that had not received completion certificate needed to register with the regulatory authority before July 31. They prayed the Act should not be applicable on the ongoing projects for which completion certificate had not been issued. They contended provisions restricting sale of real estate, opening of escrow account and registration of existing projects with RERA were unconstitutional.

Source: Times of India July 26, 2017 22:52 UTC