CWP-12940-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 128 Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & others The Chairman, Chandigarh Housing Board, Chandigarh & others CORAM: HON Present: - Mr. Mr. Keshav Advocates, for the petitioners. *** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J 1. The the Constitution of India 15.10.2024, 06.11.2024 and 04.09.2025 passed by Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh Execution Application No.103 of 2020. 2. Learned State Commission vide order dated Execution Application No.EA/103/2020 directed the petitioner balance payment of compensation. The said order was passed in the light of order dated 13.04.2023 passed by Hon’ble Suprem No.6380 of 2021. Learned directed personal appearance of Directors of petitioner Commission vide order dated 06.11.2024 again ordered for personal 2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP Date of Decision: Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & others Versus Chairman, Chandigarh Housing Board, Chandigarh & others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Mr. Sarjit Bhadu, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Keshav, Ms. Nimisha Pathak & Ms. Vardhani Gupta, Advocates, for the petitioners. *** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral) The petitioners through instant petition under Article the Constitution of India are seeking setting aside of orders dated 03.09.2024, 15.10.2024, 06.11.2024 and 04.09.2025 passed by Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (for short ‘State Commission’) Execution Application No.103 of 2020. Learned State Commission vide order dated Execution Application No.EA/103/2020 directed the petitioner balance payment of compensation. The said order was passed in the light of order dated 13.04.2023 passed by Hon’ble Suprem No.6380 of 2021. Learned State Commission vide order dated 15.10.2024 directed personal appearance of Directors of petitioner Commission vide order dated 06.11.2024 again ordered for personal IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-12940-2026 Date of Decision: 29.04.2026 …Petitioners Chairman, Chandigarh Housing Board, Chandigarh & others …Respondents BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Sarjit Bhadu, Senior Advocate, with , Ms. Nimisha Pathak & Ms. Vardhani Gupta, through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of setting aside of orders dated 03.09.2024, 15.10.2024, 06.11.2024 and 04.09.2025 passed by learned State Consumer (for short ‘State Commission’) in Learned State Commission vide order dated 03.09.2024 passed in Execution Application No.EA/103/2020 directed the petitioners to clear balance payment of compensation. The said order was passed in the light of order dated 13.04.2023 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Commission vide order dated 15.10.2024 directed personal appearance of Directors of petitioner-company. Learned State Commission vide order dated 06.11.2024 again ordered for personal s s of setting aside of orders dated 03.09.2024, onsumer in 3.09.2024 passed in to clear balance payment of compensation. The said order was passed in the light of e Court in Civil Appeal Commission vide order dated 15.10.2024 State Commission vide order dated 06.11.2024 again ordered for personal VIMAL KUMAR 2026.04.29 18:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-12940-2026 appearance of the orders and learned bailable warrants. The petitioner learned National short ‘National Commission’) dated 12.09.2025 3. Learned senior counsel learned State Commission has passed order dated 03.09.2024 contrary of Hon’ble Supreme Court. 4. From that learned State Commission has passed order after noticing order dated 13.04.2023 passed by 2021. Learned State Commission considered that liability of petitioners and Chandigarh Housing Board is in the ratio of 70:30. After noticing order of Hon’ble Supreme Court, learned State Commission directed the petitioners to make the payment. The petiti however, they opted approached learned National Commission 12.09.2025 with liberty to pursue other available remedies. writ petition is other available remedy. objections before learned State Commission, however, opted to file an appeal and not to join proceedings which compelled learned State Commission to issue non-bailable warrants from the date of passing the impugned order. to drag the litigation and avail 2026 -2- appearance of the Directors. The petitioners orders and learned State Commission vide order dated 04.09.2025 issued non bailable warrants. The petitioners filed Appeal National Consumer Disputes Redressal short ‘National Commission’) which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 12.09.2025. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that learned State Commission has passed order dated 03.09.2024 contrary of Hon’ble Supreme Court. rom the perusal of impugned order dated that learned State Commission has passed order after noticing order dated 13.04.2023 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6380 of 21. Learned State Commission considered that liability of petitioners and Chandigarh Housing Board is in the ratio of 70:30. After noticing order of Hon’ble Supreme Court, learned State Commission directed the petitioners to make the payment. The petitioners were granted multiple opportunities, opted not to appear before learned State Commission, whereas approached learned National Commission and withdrew 12.09.2025 with liberty to pursue other available remedies. writ petition is other available remedy. The petitioners could raise its objections before learned State Commission, however, opted to file an appeal and not to join proceedings which compelled learned State Commission to ailable warrants. A period of almost two years has passed away from the date of passing the impugned order. Intention of the petitioners seems to drag the litigation and avail remedies as much as possible. did not comply with aforesaid Commission vide order dated 04.09.2025 issued non- ppeal Execution No.80 of 2024 before Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order appearing for the petitioners submits that learned State Commission has passed order dated 03.09.2024 contrary to orders the perusal of impugned order dated 03.09.2024, it is evident that learned State Commission has passed order after noticing order dated Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6380 of 21. Learned State Commission considered that liability of petitioners and Chandigarh Housing Board is in the ratio of 70:30. After noticing order of Hon’ble Supreme Court, learned State Commission directed the petitioners to oners were granted multiple opportunities, not to appear before learned State Commission, whereas and withdrew their appeal on 12.09.2025 with liberty to pursue other available remedies. As per petitioners, The petitioners could raise its objections before learned State Commission, however, opted to file an appeal and not to join proceedings which compelled learned State Commission to period of almost two years has passed away ntention of the petitioners seems as much as possible. did not comply with aforesaid - xecution No.80 of 2024 before (for which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order appearing for the petitioners submits that s 03.09.2024, it is evident that learned State Commission has passed order after noticing order dated Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6380 of 21. Learned State Commission considered that liability of petitioners and Chandigarh Housing Board is in the ratio of 70:30. After noticing order of Hon’ble Supreme Court, learned State Commission directed the petitioners to oners were granted multiple opportunities, not to appear before learned State Commission, whereas appeal on As per petitioners, The petitioners could raise its objections before learned State Commission, however, opted to file an appeal and not to join proceedings which compelled learned State Commission to period of almost two years has passed away ntention of the petitioners seems VIMAL KUMAR 2026.04.29 18:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-12940-2026 5. A Constitution Bench in AIR 1964 SC 477 recently in Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences and another Vs Bikartan Das and others 2023 SCC Online SC 996 there are two card under Article 226 of the Constitution of India i.e. (i) High Court does not exercise the powers of Appellate Tribunal. It does not review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination o based. It demolishes the order which it considers to be without jurisdiction or palpably erroneous but does not substitute its own views for those of the inferior tribunal. The writ of certiorari can be issued if an e apparent on the face of the record; (ii) in a given case, even if some action or order challenged in the writ petition is found to be illegal and invalid, the High Court while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction thereunder can refuse t upset it with a view to doing substantial justice between the parties. It is perfectly open for the writ court, exercising this flexible power to pass such orders as public interest dictates & equity projects. The High Court would be failing in its duty final order in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. Any other approach would render the High Court a normal court of appeal which it is not. 6. A writ of certiorari can be issued for corre jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals. Error of jurisdiction includes order by inferior court or tribunal without jurisdiction or in excess of it or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdiction. A writ can similarly be i where in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it, the Court or Tribunal acts illegally or improperly, as for instance, it decides a question without giving an 2026 -3- A Constitution Bench in Syed Yakoob AIR 1964 SC 477 and a two judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences and another Vs Bikartan Das and others 2023 SCC Online SC 996 there are two cardinal principles of law governing issuance of writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India i.e. (i) High Court does not exercise the powers of Appellate Tribunal. It does not review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior tribunal purports to be based. It demolishes the order which it considers to be without jurisdiction or palpably erroneous but does not substitute its own views for those of the inferior tribunal. The writ of certiorari can be issued if an e apparent on the face of the record; (ii) in a given case, even if some action or order challenged in the writ petition is found to be illegal and invalid, the High Court while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction thereunder can refuse t upset it with a view to doing substantial justice between the parties. It is perfectly open for the writ court, exercising this flexible power to pass such orders as public interest dictates & equity projects. The High Court would be failing in its duty if it does not notice equitable consideration and mould the final order in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. Any other approach would render the High Court a normal court of appeal which it is not. A writ of certiorari can be issued for corre jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals. Error of jurisdiction includes order by inferior court or tribunal without jurisdiction or in excess of it or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdiction. A writ can similarly be i where in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it, the Court or Tribunal acts illegally or improperly, as for instance, it decides a question without giving an Syed Yakoob Vs K.S. Radhakrishnan, and a two judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences and another Vs Bikartan Das and others 2023 SCC Online SC 996 have reminded us that inal principles of law governing issuance of writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India i.e. (i) High Court does not exercise the powers of Appellate Tribunal. It does not review or reweigh the f the inferior tribunal purports to be based. It demolishes the order which it considers to be without jurisdiction or palpably erroneous but does not substitute its own views for those of the inferior tribunal. The writ of certiorari can be issued if an error of law is apparent on the face of the record; (ii) in a given case, even if some action or order challenged in the writ petition is found to be illegal and invalid, the High Court while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction thereunder can refuse to upset it with a view to doing substantial justice between the parties. It is perfectly open for the writ court, exercising this flexible power to pass such orders as public interest dictates & equity projects. The High Court would be if it does not notice equitable consideration and mould the final order in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. Any other approach would render the High Court a normal court of appeal which it is not. A writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals. Error of jurisdiction includes order by inferior court or tribunal without jurisdiction or in excess of it or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdiction. A writ can similarly be issued where in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it, the Court or Tribunal acts illegally or improperly, as for instance, it decides a question without giving an Vs K.S. Radhakrishnan, and a two judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences and another have reminded us that inal principles of law governing issuance of writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India i.e. (i) High Court does not exercise the powers of Appellate Tribunal. It does not review or reweigh the f the inferior tribunal purports to be based. It demolishes the order which it considers to be without jurisdiction or palpably erroneous but does not substitute its own views for those of the rror of law is apparent on the face of the record; (ii) in a given case, even if some action or order challenged in the writ petition is found to be illegal and invalid, the High o upset it with a view to doing substantial justice between the parties. It is perfectly open for the writ court, exercising this flexible power to pass such orders as public interest dictates & equity projects. The High Court would be if it does not notice equitable consideration and mould the final order in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. Any other approach cting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals. Error of jurisdiction includes order by inferior court or tribunal without jurisdiction or in excess of it ssued where in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it, the Court or Tribunal acts illegally or improperly, as for instance, it decides a question without giving an VIMAL KUMAR 2026.04.29 18:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-12940-2026 opportunity to be heard to the party affected by the order, or where the procedure adopted natural justice. There is, however, no doubt that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is not entitled to act as an appellate Court findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal as result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record a writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the Tribunal had erroneo refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In dealing with this category of cases, however, High Court must always bear in mind that a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground that the the Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the e Tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before a writ Court. It is within these limits that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 226 to issue a writ of certiorari can be legitimately exercised. 7. In the wake of above discussion and findings, this Court does not find it appropriate to invoke its extra 2026 -4- opportunity to be heard to the party affected by the order, or where the procedure adopted in dealing with the dispute is opposed to principles of natural justice. There is, however, no doubt that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is not entitled to act as an appellate Court. This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal as result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record a writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the Tribunal had erroneo refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of n be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In dealing with this category of cases, however, High Court must always bear in mind that a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the e Tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before a writ Court. It is within these limits that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 226 to issue a writ of certiorari can be legitimately exercised. In the wake of above discussion and findings, this Court does not find it appropriate to invoke its extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction. opportunity to be heard to the party affected by the order, or where the in dealing with the dispute is opposed to principles of natural justice. There is, however, no doubt that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is not . This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal as result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the Tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of n be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In dealing with this category of cases, however, High Court must always bear in mind that a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ of relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before a writ Court. It is within these limits that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 226 to issue a writ of certiorari can be legitimately exercised. In the wake of above discussion and findings, this Court does not ordinary writ jurisdiction. opportunity to be heard to the party affected by the order, or where the in dealing with the dispute is opposed to principles of natural justice. There is, however, no doubt that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is not . This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal as result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued if it usly refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of n be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In dealing with this category of cases, however, High Court must always bear in mind that a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ of relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact xclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before a writ Court. It is within these limits that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 226 In the wake of above discussion and findings, this Court does not VIMAL KUMAR 2026.04.29 18:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-12940-2026 8. Dismissed 9. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. 29.04.2026 Vimal Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 2026 -5- Dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) VIMAL KUMAR 2026.04.29 18:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document