Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2026 DAILYLAW 10013 (PNJ)

RAJBIR SINGH BRAR v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

CWP/7065/2026 · 2026-03-10

Jagmohan Bansal

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 126 CWP-7065-2026 Date of Decision: 10.03.2026 RAJBIR SINGH BRAR ...Petitioner Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. …Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present:- Mr. Hitesh Sood, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Aman Dhir, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab *** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 20.07.2021 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Muktsar Sahib (for short ‘District Commission’). 2. The petitioner preferred a consumer complaint before District Commission. The District Commission passed interim order dated 17.09.2021. The respondent complied with directions issued to it. The petitioner preferred application under Sections 71 and 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 seeking enforcement of order dated 17.09.2021. The District Commission vide order dated 20.07.2023 modified its earlier order. The petitioner feeling aggrieved from order dated 20.07.2023 preferred first appeal before State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission which came to be dismissed. He preferred second DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.03.10 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-7065-2026 -2- appeal before National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission which came to be dismissed vide order dated 27.11.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that matter is still pending before District Commission. Final order is yet to be passed. He has preferred appeals before higher forums against interim orders. 4. The petitioner was having remedy to file first and second appeal which he availed. The matter is still pending for final adjudication before District Commission. There seems no reason to invoke writ jurisdiction. 5. In the wake of above discussion and findings, this Court is of the considered opinion that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. 6. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE March 10, 2026 Deepak DPA Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.03.10 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document