CWP-19738-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.105 CWP-19738-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 10.07.2026 Amit Goel .... Petitioner Versus Ansal Hi-Tech Townships Limited and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Present: Mr. Shvetanshu Goel, Advocate, and Ms. Kritika Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (ORAL) CM-11019-CWP-2026 Application is allowed and the order dated 01.07.2026 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula, is taken on record as Annexure P-6. Main case The petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing the seventh respondent/District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, ‘the Commission’), to decide the petitioner’s Consumer Complaint bearing no.DC/70/CC/No.171 of 2021 as expeditiously as possible, especially keeping in view the provisions of Section 38 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. 2. Learned counsel contended that the petitioner filed the aforementioned complaint before the Commission on 10.03.2021, seeking refund of the amount deposited by him with respondent/Ansal Hi-Tech Townships Limited. The respondents/opposite parties appeared before the MANINDER 2026.07.14 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-19738-2026 (O&M) 2 Commission and filed written statement on 27.10.2021. The petitioner filed replication and evidence by way of affidavits on 21.04.2022. The respondents, however, sought repeated adjournments to file evidence, which was finally submitted on 31.05.2023. Thereafter, they took about six adjournments to produce certain orders passed by the National Green Tribunal (NGT), Annexure P-5, but the complaint has still not been finally decided. The respondents/opposite parties are unnecessarily delaying the decision which has caused prejudice to the petitioner’s rights. The case is complete in all respects and can be finally argued and decided. Even the last order passed by the Commission, dated 01.07.2026, Annexure P-6, shows that again the case has been adjourned awaiting information about moratorium procedure, if any, initiated against the opposite parties under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, though none had appeared on their behalf before the Commission, as the order itself records. 3. Considering the facts aforementioned, this Court is of the view that a direction needs to be issued to the Commission to finally decide the petitioner’s complaint expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from today. 4. Ordered accordingly. (TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) JUDGE 10.07.2026 Maninder Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No MANINDER 2026.07.14 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment