CWP-21244-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 139 CWP-21244-2026 Date of Decision: 15.07.2026 B.S. Singla …Petitioner(s) Versus State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana and others …Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Present:- Mr. D.K. Singal, Advocate for the petitioner TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (Oral) The petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent/State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Panchkula, to decide the pending revision petition, RP-83-2023 dated 27.10.2023 titled The Greater Punjab Officers Cooperative House Building Society Limited and another v. B.S. Singla, as also the transfer application, TA- 7-2023 dated 30.11.2023, in a specified time period. 2. As apparent on record, in May 2022 the petitioner filed a Consumer Complaint no.405 of 2022 against the second respondent/Greater Punjab Officers Co-operative House Building Society Limited, Mohali (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Society’), before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurugram, seeking direction to the opposite parties/ Society to hand over physical possession of a plot measuring 500 square yards. After hearing the complaint, the District Commission passed an interim order dated 03.11.2022, Annexure P-4, directing the Society to allot two commercial PAYAL 2026.07.20 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-21244-2026 -2- plots measuring 100 square yards each to the complainant within fifteen days of depositing an amount of ₹26,20,000. The said order was challenged by the Society before the State Commission by filing a revision petition, RP-82-2022. The petition was accepted by the State Commission vide order dated 15.05.2023, Annexure P-6, setting aside the interim order and directing the District Commission to decide the complaint in accordance with law, preferably within a period of eight months. 2.1. The complaint was, accordingly, taken up for hearing by the District Commission and during the proceedings another interim order dated 04.09.2023, Annexure P-7, was passed, whereby the opposite parties were restrained from making any allotment either in the residential area or in the commercial area owned by them during pendency of the complaint. This interim order was also challenged by the Society before the State Commission by filing a revision petition, RP-83-2023, and vide order dated 06.11.2023, Annexure P-9, operation of the said interim order was stayed. The revision petition remains pending adjudication. 2.2. In the meanwhile, the Society filed transfer application, TA/7/2023, before the State Commission, whereupon an order dated 23.07.2024, Annexure P-11, was passed staying further proceedings in the complaint before the District Commission. This transfer application also remains pending and has been clubbed for adjudication with the aforesaid revision petition. The pleadings are complete, but the matter is not being decided. Reference has been made to short orders passed by the Commission from 18.11.2024 to 28.04.2026, Annexures P-16 to P-29, respectively, showing PAYAL 2026.07.20 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-21244-2026 -3- that the petition and the application have repeatedly been adjourned on one pretext or another, despite the petitioner’s objections. 3. Learned counsel contends that indecision of the aforesaid petitions has seriously prejudiced the petitioner’s rights as he has not been able to get adjudication of his complaint seeking possession of the residential plot for which payment has already been made. 4. Keeping in view the nature of directions being issued, which are not to the prejudice of the respondents, service upon them is dispensed with. 5. In view of the aforementioned facts, it is evident that the revision petition as well as the transfer application are pending adjudication before the State Commission for over two years now, despite completion of pleadings. Consequently, the petitioner’s complaint before the District Commission has also remained undecided, which adversely affects his rights. 6. Accordingly, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of the petition with a direction to first respondent/State Commission to finally hear and decide the revision petition, RP-83-2023, as well as the transfer application, TA-7-2023, expeditiously and preferably within three months of the next date of hearing fixed before it, i.e., 29.07.2026. (TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) JUDGE 15.07.2026 Payal Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No PAYAL 2026.07.20 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment