The supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 is limited to addressing patent perversity; it cannot be used as an appellate power to review concurrent findings where a developer failed to deliver possession with the requisite regulatory certification and consequently forfeited payments without legal basis.

JUDGMENT :

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J.

CM APPL. 33001-33002/2026 (for exemption)

1. Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The applications stand disposed of.

W.P.(C) 6720/2026 and CM APPL. 33000/2026

1. The petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 23.02.2026 (“Impugned Order”) passed by the National Commission for Disputes Redressal Commission (“National Commission”), whereby, the first appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 16.01.2026 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“State Commission”), was dismissed. The State Commission in terms of the order dated 16.01.2026 has directed as under:-

“26. All these facts of the case show that the Opposite Party was deficient in providing its services to Complainant and had adopted unfair trade practice. Further, we are of the considered view that the Opposite Party does not have any right to deduct the amount of Rs.3,83,406/- even when the delay was on its part.”

2. National Commission in paragraph no. 3 of the Impugned Order has observed as under:-

“3. Receipt of Rs.3,83,406/- from the complainant-respondent is not in dispute. The complainant booked the flat in the project of the Opposite Party and Opposite Party issued the allotment letter dated 16.08.2011. Although, counsel for the appellant claims that offer of possession was made on 15.02.2017, he fairly admits that as on that date, no valid Occupation Certificate from the competent authority was available. Hence, such offer of possession which was also issued beyond the committed date of possession as per the allotment, cannot be treated as valid offer of possession. It emerges from the contention of the appellant herein that they have possibly forfeited 20% of the booking amount. On account of not giving the possession within the committed date of possession with valid OC, they were not entitled to forfeit any amount.”

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has taken the Court’s attention to the Scheme Brochure and points out that the Occupation Certificate was not stated to be a condition precedent for the booking of the unit. He further contends that the deduction of Rs.2,06,220/- towards cancellation charges was in strict conformity with Rule 26 of the Scheme Brochure, and that the deduction of Rs.1,77,186/- towards service tax cannot be directed to be refunded as the same had already been deposited with the Government exchequer.

4. The Petitioner seeks to challenge concurrent findings of the State Commission and the National Commission, both of which have returned findings of deficiency of service and directed refund of the deducted amounts.

5. Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 over orders of tribunals and statutory commissions is supervisory in character and is not appellate. Before examining whether the specific findings on cancellation charges and the service tax component can be said to be perverse or contrary to law, the only basis on which interference can be warranted, it is necessary to clearly set out the scope and limits of this Court’s jurisdiction under Article 227.

6. In Waryam Singh v. Amarnath , (1954) 1 SCC 51. the Supreme Court has held as under:

“13. This power of superintendence conferred by Article 227 is, as pointed out by Harries, C.J., in Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. v. Sukumar Mukherjee [Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. v. Sukumar Mukherjee, 1950 SCC