[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shri Ashish Seth And Another vs Permanent Lok Adalat For Public Utility ... on 18 April, 2026
116 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
CWP-11589-2026 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 18.04.2026
Shri Ashish Seth and Another
...Petitioners
Versus
Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services and Others
...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present:- Mr. Kunal Dawar, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate and
Ms. Shruti Mandhotra, Advocate
for the petitioners.
****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioners through instant petition under Articles
226/227 of the Constitution of India are seeking setting aside of award
dated 22.07.2022 whereby learned Permanent Lok Adalat, Faridabad (for
short 'PLA') has allowed respondent No.2's application under Section
22C of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for short '1987 Act'). They
are further seeking setting aside of orders passed by Civil Judge (Junior
Division), Faridabad whereby conditional warrants have been issued
against them.
2. The petitioners are Directors of M/s Ferrous Infrastructure
Private Limited. The aforesaid company is engaged in the business of real
estate. Vinod Kumar Nigam and his wife-Kiran Nigam paid a sum of
Rs.15,79,000/- to aforesaid company. The payment was made with
respect to 2BHK Flat No.103, Tower "D", Ferrous City, Sector-89,
CWP-11589-2026 (O&M) -2-
Faridabad. The respondent-company neither handed over aforesaid flat
nor returned invested money, thus, Vinod Kumar Nigam and his wife
approached learned PLA under Section 22C of 1987 Act. The company
filed its response disputing liability. Learned PLA vide order dated
22.07.2022 partly allowed application and directed the respondents to pay
a sum of Rs.15,79,000/- to applicants. Neither the company nor its
Directors complied with orders of learned PLA, thus, decree holder
approached Civil Court seeking execution of decree. Learned Civil Judge
(Junior Division), Faridabad issued conditional warrant of arrest. At one
stage, execution application was dismissed in default, however, it was
restored. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad again issued
conditional warrant of arrest.
3. Learned Senior Advocate representing the petitioners
submits that Executing Court is travelling beyond the order passed by
learned PLA. The liability was fastened upon company which is under
liquidation. The petitioner No.2 at the time of passing impugned order
was no more Director of the company. The impugned order passed by
learned PLA is silent qua liability of the Directors. Learned PLA was
supposed to record categoric findings with respect to liability of
Directors. The Directors cannot be held liable for the liability of the
company.
4. Heard the arguments and perused the record.
5. From the perusal of record, it is evident that impugned order
was passed on 22.07.2022. It was not an ex parte order. Learned counsel
on being asked reason of inordinate delay failed to advance any plausible
reason. He simply submitted that company was contesting the matter and
CWP-11589-2026 (O&M) -3-
Directors/petitioners were unaware.
6. No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down as to when the High
Court should refuse to exercise its jurisdiction in favour of a party who
moves it after considerable delay and is otherwise guilty of laches.
Discretion must be exercised judiciously and reasonably. In the event that
the claim made by the applicant is legally sustainable, delay should be
condoned. Where illegality is manifest, cannot be sustained on the sole
ground of laches. When substantial justice and technical considerations
are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to
be preferred. State cannot deprive vested right because of a non-
deliberate delay.
7. A two Judge Bench of Supreme Court recently in 'Mrinmoy
Maity Vs. Chhanda Koley and others' 2024 SCC OnLine SC 551 has
held that High Court ought to dismiss petition on the ground of delay and
laches where there is no explanation of delay. An applicant who
approaches the Court belatedly or in the other words sleeps over his
rights for a considerable period ought not to be granted the extraordinary
relief by writ Courts. Delay defeats equity. High Court may refuse to
invoke its writ jurisdiction if laxity on the part of applicant has allowed
the cause of action to drift away and attempts are made to rekindle the
lapsed cause of action. Multiple communications cannot create cause of
action. The relevant extracts of the judgment are reproduced as below:
"9. Having heard rival contentions raised and on
perusal of the facts obtained in the present case, we are of
the considered view that writ petitioner ought to have been
non-suited or in other words writ petition ought to have
been dismissed on the ground of delay and latches itself.
An applicant who approaches the court belatedly or in
CWP-11589-2026 (O&M) -4-
other words sleeps over his rights for a considerable
period of time, wakes up from his deep slumber ought not
to be granted the extraordinary relief by the writ courts.
This Court time and again has held that delay defeats
equity. Delay or latches is one of the factors which should
be born in mind by the High Court while exercising
discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India. In a given case, the High Court may refuse to
invoke its extraordinary powers if laxity on the part of the
applicant to assert his right has allowed the cause of
action to drift away and attempts are made subsequently to
rekindle the lapsed cause of action.
10. The discretion to be exercised would be with
care and caution. If the delay which has occasioned in
approaching the writ court is explained which would
appeal to the conscience of the court, in such
circumstances it cannot be gainsaid by the contesting party
that for all times to come the delay is not to be condoned.
There may be myriad circumstances which gives rise to the
invoking of the extraordinary jurisdiction and it all
depends on facts and circumstances of each case, same
cannot be described in a straight jacket formula with
mathematical exercised by the writ court depends upon
the facts that it has to travel or the terrain in which the
facts have travelled.
11. For filing of a writ petition, there is no doubt
that no fixed period of limitation is prescribed. However,
when the extraordinary jurisdiction of the writ court is
invoked, it has to be seen as to whether within a
reasonable time same has been invoked and even
submitting of memorials would not revive the dead cause
of action or resurrect the cause of action which has had a
natural death. In such circumstances on the ground of
delay and latches alone, the appeal ought to be dismissed
or the applicant ought to be non-suited. If it is found that
the writ petitioner is guilty of delay and latches, the High
Court ought to dismiss the petition on that sole ground
CWP-11589-2026 (O&M) -5-
itself, in as much as the writ courts are not to indulge in
permitting such indolent litigant to take advantage of his
own wrong. It is true that there cannot be any waiver of
fundamental right but while exercising discretionary
jurisdiction under Article 226, the High Court will have to
necessarily take into consideration the delay and latches
on the part of the applicant in approaching a writ court."
8. The company which accepted funds from innocent investors
is a Private Limited Company. It is well-known that private companies
are ordinarily closely knitted companies. The petitioners are not denying
that they were never Directors of the company. They have not placed on
record shareholding pattern of the company which must have disclosed
that they were prime shareholders of the company. They were
respondents before learned PLA. The application was allowed by learned
PLA. The order was passed on 22.07.2022 and present petition has been
filed after almost four years before this Court. They adopted all ways and
means to defer their liability. The innocent investor availed all possible
remedies. The petitioners at the cost of investors are pursuing litigation
and not discharging their liability.
9. Section 22E provides that award passed by learned PLA shall
be final and binding on all the parties. The award cannot be called in
question in any original suit, application or execution proceedings. It is
factually and legally correct that award passed by learned PLA can be
examined in writ jurisdiction, however, mandate of Section 22E cannot
be ignored. The award can be examined in writ jurisdiction if there is
manifest procedural or fundamental error or PLA has passed award
beyond its jurisdiction. There is no such argument or allegation in the
present case. Learned PLA has passed impugned order after following
CWP-11589-2026 (O&M) -6-
prescribed procedure and granting opportunity of hearing.
10. A Constitution Bench in Syed Yakoob Vs K.S.
Radhakrishnan, AIR 1964 SC 477 and a two judge bench of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court recently in Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic
Sciences and another Vs Bikartan Das and others 2023 SCC Online SC
996 have reminded us that 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 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 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.
11. 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
CWP-11589-2026 (O&M) -7-
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 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 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 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 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
CWP-11589-2026 (O&M) -8-
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 Art. 226 to issue a writ of certiorari can be
legitimately exercised.
12. In the wake of aforecited judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court and considering inordinate delay on the part of petitioners, this
Court does not find it appropriate to invoke its extra-ordinary writ
jurisdiction.
13. Dismissed.
14. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE
18.04.2026
Prince Chawla
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
