IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:28.11.2025 M/S SHREE VARDHMAN DEVELOPERS PVT LTD ...PETITIONER VERSUS STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL Present: Mr. Anurag Kumar Jain, Advocate, Mr. Shallabh Singhal, Advocate and Ms. Namisha Kapoor, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

SUVIR SEHGAL, J.

1. This petition has been filed, inter alia, for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing order dated 16.01.2024, Annexure P-6, passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, respondent No.1 (for short “SCDRC”).

2. Counsel for the petitioner states that a Flat Buyers’ Agreement, Annexure P-1, was entered into on 11.12.2012, whereby second respondent agreed to purchase an apartment at Shree Vardhman Gardenia, Sector 10, Sonipat, and its possession was to be offered by 11.06.2016. Counsel states that after obtaining occupation certificate, Annexure P-2, an offer of possession was given on 11.04.2017, Annexure P-3, but instead second respondent filed a complaint, Annexure P-4, before SCDRC alleging that project has not been granted a completion certificate. He states that after contest, complaint was allowed vide impugned order dated 16.01.2024, Annexure P-6, which was passed by a member of SCDRC sitting singly. By referring to provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, it has been contended that a single member cannot adjudicate the complaint and impugned order suffers from the vice of coram non judice. Counsel has placed reliance upon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.S. Vs. Rajat Gupta and others Law Finder Doc Id #2742200 as well as decisions of the Rajasthan High Court in Kamal Travels Kokks International Vs. The State of Rajasthan and others Law Finder Doc Id #2734723 and Divisional Manager N.I.C. Limited, Jodhpur Vs. Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and others 2018 SCC Online Raj 2648. Counsel has also invited the attention of Court to interim order dated 12.07.2023, Annexure P-12, to submit that similar issue is pending for adjudication before the High Court of Delhi. It is also his contention that as the order passed by SCDRC is without jurisdiction, it can be challenged at any stage.

3. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments addressed by him.

4. It cannot be disputed that petitioner has a remedy of filing an appeal under Section 51 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, assailing an order passed by SCDRC. Impugned order, Annexure P-6, has been passed in the presence of counsel for the petitioner, but instead of taking recourse to the remedy of appeal, petitioner has challenged it by way of instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. In Pranav Ansal Vs. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, 2020 (4) PLR 529, this Court held that it is amply clear that Consumer Protection Act, provides for filing of an appeal both on facts and on law, before the specially constituted forum under the said Act for redressal of the grievances of the aggrieved party. In such a situation, invocation of Article 226 of Constitution of India by a person aggrieved against the orders of the SCRDC would not be tenable.

6. During the course of arguments, counsel for the petitioner stated that present petition has been filed as petitioner has received notices in an execution petition preferred by second respondent. However, an examination of the petition shows that there is not even a whisper of the pendency of the execution petition. Petitioner has not disclosed the stage of execution petition nor has it mentioned as to whether petitioner has appeared before the executing court. In any case as petitioner has an alternate statutory remedy, this Court refrains from exercising its extra ordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

7. For the afore-going reasons, without examining t