IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 152 CWP-13747-2026 Date of Decision: 04.05.2026 RAJESH BANBAH AND ANOTHER ...Petitioners Vs. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AND ANOTHER …Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present:- Mr. Sanjay Jain, Advocate for the petitioners *** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The petitioners through instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are seeking direction to respondent No.1-State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (for short ‘State Commission’) to decide Appeal No.A/1482/2023 in a time bound manner. 2. The petitioners filed a complaint before the District Consumer Redressal Commission, Gurugram against respondent No.2- builder which was allowed in their favour vide order dated 05.05.2023. The respondent No.2 filed an appeal before the respondent No.1/State Commission along with application for condonation of delay. Respondent No.1 is delaying the final adjudication on one or another pretext. 3. The petitioner is claiming that direction should be issued to State Commission to adjudicate the appeal at the earliest. DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.05.04 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-13747-2026 -2- 4. It is well known fact that Courts are overburdened. Every Court is inundated with civil and criminal cases. This Court cannot control board of any Court/Authority/Commission. It is State Commission which has to control its board. The petitioner is supposed to approach the State Commission and point out urgency, if any. Ld. State Commission is requested to look into petitioner’s grievance if they file any application seeking early adjudication. 5. Disposed of in above terms. 6. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE May 04, 2026 Deepak DPA Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.05.04 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document