CWP-19622-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana Manjit Singh Bal & another CORAM: Present: GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. 1. The petitioner (Annexure P Commission petitioner challenging State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed on grounds of limitation. 2. A few facts necessary to notice for disposal of instant petition are that respondent No.1 square yards Ludhiana by the Ludhiana Improvement Trust vide allotment letter dated 14.09.1976. However, subsequently performance came to be filed by one question against respondent No.1 2012. The appeals filed by the said Jaswinder Singh were also dismissed by (O&M) ( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES AT CHANDIGARH CWP Date of Decision: Improvement Trust, Ludhiana Versus Manjit Singh Bal & another HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMARI Dr. Puneet Kaur Sekhon, Advocate, for the petitioner. GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. petitioner – Ludhiana Improvement Trust (Annexure P-9) passed by the National Commission (NCDRC), whereby a revision petition challenging order dated 07.02.2024 (Annexure P State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed on grounds of limitation. A few facts necessary to notice for disposal of instant petition are that respondent No.1 – Manjit Singh Bal had been allotted a plot measuring 250 square yards under ‘550 Acre Expansion Scheme’ by the Ludhiana Improvement Trust vide allotment letter dated 14.09.1976. However, subsequently in the year 2007 performance came to be filed by one Jaswinder Singh question against respondent No.1, which came to be dismissed in the year 2012. The appeals filed by the said Jaswinder Singh were also dismissed by FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH WP-19622-2025 (O&M) ate of Decision: 18.02.2026 … Petitioner ... Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL RAMESH KUMARI Advocate, for the petitioner. Ludhiana Improvement Trust assails order dated 19.03.2025 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal , whereby a revision petition preferred by the 07.02.2024 (Annexure P-6) passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC), has been A few facts necessary to notice for disposal of instant petition are that had been allotted a plot measuring 250 under ‘550 Acre Expansion Scheme’ on Ferozepur Road, by the Ludhiana Improvement Trust vide allotment letter dated in the year 2007, a civil suit for specific Jaswinder Singh with regard to plot in , which came to be dismissed in the year 2012. The appeals filed by the said Jaswinder Singh were also dismissed by 19.03.2025 Consumer Disputes Redressal by the 6) passed by the has been A few facts necessary to notice for disposal of instant petition are that had been allotted a plot measuring 250 oad, by the Ludhiana Improvement Trust vide allotment letter dated a civil suit for specific with regard to plot in , which came to be dismissed in the year 2012. The appeals filed by the said Jaswinder Singh were also dismissed by VIMAL KUMAR 2026.02.20 11:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-19622-2025 (O&M) the lower Appellate Court as well as by this Court in the years 2013 & 2015 respectively. the year 2016. 3. However, before execution of sale deed, t (petitioner) No.1 pertaining to the period from Although respondent No.1 deposited the said amount, but he preferred a consumer complaint against the Ludhiana Improvem with regard to levy of said charges. Redressal Commission ( 23.11.2021 (Annexure P the SCDRC (Annexure P be refunded to respondent No.1 alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment dated 07.02.2024, the petitioner Ludhiana Improvement Trust preferred a revision petition before the NCDRC, but the same was dismissed vide order dated P-9) having been time barred by 276 days. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order dated 19.03.2025 (Annexure P not so huge so as to decline the legitimate cl It has been submitted that it is well know that some kind of procedural delays do occur in the case of Government/semi (O&M) ( 2 ) wer Appellate Court as well as by this Court in the years 2013 & 2015 respectively. Even the SLP filed by Jaswinder Singh came to be dismissed the year 2016. However, before execution of sale deed, t proceeded to recover non-construction charges from respondent No.1 pertaining to the period from 1984-2015 amounting to Rs.7,95,798/ Although respondent No.1 deposited the said amount, but he preferred a consumer complaint against the Ludhiana Improvem with regard to levy of said charges. Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC) dismissed the complaint vide order dated 23.11.2021 (Annexure P-4). Upon an appeal filed by respondent No.1 before the SCDRC, the same came to be accepted vide judgment dated 07.02.2024 (Annexure P-6) and the amount in question i.e. Rs.7,95,798/ be refunded to respondent No.1 alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment dated 07.02.2024, the petitioner Ludhiana Improvement Trust preferred a revision petition before the NCDRC, but the same was dismissed vide order dated having been filed beyond the prescribed time barred by 276 days. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order dated 19.03.2025 (Annexure P-9) vehemently argued that the delay of 276 days was not so huge so as to decline the legitimate cl It has been submitted that it is well know that some kind of procedural delays do occur in the case of Government/semi wer Appellate Court as well as by this Court in the years 2013 & 2015 SLP filed by Jaswinder Singh came to be dismissed However, before execution of sale deed, the Ludhiana Improvement Trust construction charges from respondent 2015 amounting to Rs.7,95,798/ Although respondent No.1 deposited the said amount, but he preferred a consumer complaint against the Ludhiana Improvement Trust (petitioner) Learned District Consumer Disputes dismissed the complaint vide order dated . Upon an appeal filed by respondent No.1 before same came to be accepted vide judgment dated 07.02.2024 amount in question i.e. Rs.7,95,798/- was ordered to be refunded to respondent No.1 alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment dated 07.02.2024, the petitioner Ludhiana Improvement Trust preferred a revision petition before the NCDRC, but the same was dismissed vide order dated 19.03.2025 (Annexure filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation and was Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order dated 9) vehemently argued that the delay of 276 days was not so huge so as to decline the legitimate claims of the Improvement Trust. It has been submitted that it is well know that some kind of procedural delays do occur in the case of Government/semi-Government institutions/large wer Appellate Court as well as by this Court in the years 2013 & 2015 in Ludhiana Improvement Trust construction charges from respondent 2015 amounting to Rs.7,95,798/-. Although respondent No.1 deposited the said amount, but he preferred a ent Trust (petitioner) Learned District Consumer Disputes dismissed the complaint vide order dated . Upon an appeal filed by respondent No.1 before same came to be accepted vide judgment dated 07.02.2024 was ordered to be refunded to respondent No.1 alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment dated 07.02.2024, the petitioner – Ludhiana Improvement Trust preferred a revision petition before the 19.03.2025 (Annexure period of limitation and was Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order dated 9) vehemently argued that the delay of 276 days was aims of the Improvement Trust. It has been submitted that it is well know that some kind of procedural delays Government institutions/large VIMAL KUMAR 2026.02.20 11:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-19622-2025 (O&M) offices, as the file has to pass through several channels before a final de is taken in the matter and that as such, a liberal approach ought to have been taken by the NCDRC and the delay of 276 days ought to have been condoned. Learned counsel, thus, prayed order and for directing the NCDRC 6. We have considered the aforesaid submission and have also gone through the impugned order 7. We find that the delay of 276 days in filing the revision petition cannot be said to be an insignificant delay to be overlooked or to justify liberal view in the matter. Ludhiana Improvement Trust revision petition is involved because the file has to go through many channels before approval can be granted for filing Improvement Trust being sufficient resources to avail timely legal advice from experts. in agreement with the observations recorded by the NCDRC in order dated 19.03.2025 explaining the delay of 8. In any case, the scope of interference in writ jurisdiction said order would be very limited i.e. if there is some sheer perversity in the impugned order or there in the instant case. Vs. Prakash Chand Goel, AIR 2022 SC 422 interference under Article 227 of the Constitution, held as under: (O&M) ( 3 ) offices, as the file has to pass through several channels before a final de is taken in the matter and that as such, a liberal approach ought to have been taken by the NCDRC and the delay of 276 days ought to have been condoned. Learned counsel, thus, prayed order and for directing the NCDRC to decide the revision petition on merits. We have considered the aforesaid submission and have also gone through the order/s. We find that the delay of 276 days in filing the revision petition cannot be said to be an insignificant delay to be overlooked or to justify liberal view in the matter. We also find that the submissions raised on behalf of Ludhiana Improvement Trust (petitioner) to justify the delay in filing the revision petition is a casual explanation that for taking a decision the delay is because the file has to go through many channels before approval granted for filing a revision petition Improvement Trust being an agency of the State Government is sufficient resources to avail timely legal advice from experts. in agreement with the observations recorded by the NCDRC in order dated 19.03.2025 (Annexure P-9) inasmuch as there is no explaining the delay of 276 days in filing the revision petition. In any case, the scope of interference in writ jurisdiction said order would be very limited i.e. if there is some sheer perversity in the impugned order or if there is some sheer misreading of evidence, which is not there in the instant case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prakash Chand Goel, AIR 2022 SC 422 interference under Article 227 of the Constitution, held as under: offices, as the file has to pass through several channels before a final decision is taken in the matter and that as such, a liberal approach ought to have been taken by the NCDRC and the delay of 276 days ought to have been condoned. Learned counsel, thus, prayed for setting aside the impugned to decide the revision petition on merits. We have considered the aforesaid submission and have also gone through the We find that the delay of 276 days in filing the revision petition cannot be said to be an insignificant delay to be overlooked or to justify liberal view in submissions raised on behalf of the (petitioner) to justify the delay in filing the that for taking a decision the delay is because the file has to go through many channels before approval revision petition. The petitioner – Ludhiana an agency of the State Government is having sufficient resources to avail timely legal advice from experts. We are, thus, in agreement with the observations recorded by the NCDRC in order dated there is no plausible justification for days in filing the revision petition. In any case, the scope of interference in writ jurisdiction so as to assail the said order would be very limited i.e. if there is some sheer perversity in the there is some sheer misreading of evidence, which is not The Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Garment Craft Prakash Chand Goel, AIR 2022 SC 422, while defining the scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution, held as under: cision is taken in the matter and that as such, a liberal approach ought to have been taken by the NCDRC and the delay of 276 days ought to have been for setting aside the impugned to decide the revision petition on merits. We have considered the aforesaid submission and have also gone through the We find that the delay of 276 days in filing the revision petition cannot be said to be an insignificant delay to be overlooked or to justify liberal view in the (petitioner) to justify the delay in filing the that for taking a decision the delay is because the file has to go through many channels before approval Ludhiana having , thus, in agreement with the observations recorded by the NCDRC in order dated justification for so as to assail the said order would be very limited i.e. if there is some sheer perversity in the there is some sheer misreading of evidence, which is not M/s Garment Craft , while defining the scope of VIMAL KUMAR 2026.02.20 11:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-19622-2025 (O&M) “18. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order is contrary to law and cannot be sustained for several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the limited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article Constitution of India. The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal. jurisdiction exe right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no 9. Examining the impugned order in the light of ratio of law Garment Craft’s case (supra) impugned order jurisdiction. dismissed. 18.02.2026 Vimal (O&M) ( 4 ) Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order is contrary to law and cannot be sustained for several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the limited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article Constitution of India. The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal. jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no Examining the impugned order in the light of ratio of law Garment Craft’s case (supra), we do not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned order so as to warrant any interference jurisdiction. Finding no merit in the instant petition, the same is hereby dismissed. (GURVINDER SINGH GILL Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order is contrary to law and cannot be sustained for several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the limited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal. The rcised is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. The power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice.” Examining the impugned order in the light of ratio of law laid down in M/s e do not find any perversity or illegality in the any interference in exercise of writ Finding no merit in the instant petition, the same is hereby GURVINDER SINGH GILL) JUDGE (RAMESH KUMARI) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No M/s e do not find any perversity or illegality in the in exercise of writ Finding no merit in the instant petition, the same is hereby VIMAL KUMAR 2026.02.20 11:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document