Facts
Mr. S.N. Sharma claimed membership of M/s. Burmah Shell Co-operative Housing Society and entitlement to allotment of a plot. After earlier proceedings were remanded by the Supreme Court, the Registrar, acting as Arbitrator under S.61 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972, held on 07.10.2003 that the claimant was a member and directed allotment of a plot to his legal heir. The Tribunal affirmed the order on 18.03.2004.
The Society challenged these orders before the Delhi High Court under Arts.226 and 227 Const. of India. The High Court found that material documents had been ignored, including the claimant's resignation in 1951, its acceptance, rejection of his fresh membership application in 1952, and rejection of his request to deposit money for a plot in 1979. It consequently set aside the orders of the Arbitrator and Tribunal and dismissed the claim.
Issues Framed
Whether the High Court, in exercise of certiorari jurisdiction, was justified in interfering with the orders passed by the Arbitrator and the Tribunal.
Whether the original claimant had been admitted as a member of the Society and was consequently entitled to allotment of a plot.
Court’s Reasoning
(a) Scope of certiorari jurisdiction: Certiorari jurisdiction is supervisory and not appellate. The writ court ordinarily cannot reappreciate evidence, but interference is permissible where there is a jurisdictional error, an error of law apparent on the face of the record, or a finding unsupported by evidence or wholly unwarranted by the evidence.
(b) Ignored documentary evidence: The Court found that the Registrar and Tribunal had “glossed over relevant documentary material”. The record showed that the claimant's resignation was accepted on 05.05.1951, his share was transferred on 18.08.1951, his fresh membership application was rejected on 05.11.1952, and his request to deposit money for a plot was rejected as late as 04.11.1979.
(c) Perversity of the Arbitrator's finding: Despite these documents, the Arbitrator presumed that the claimant continued to be a member throughout his lifetime merely because his name appeared in a list of members. The Tribunal affirmed this finding in a cryptic order.
(d) Equitable considerations: The High Court was also justified in considering that four members had prior claims for allotment of plots. The claimant's asserted entitlement could therefore not prevail merely on the basis of his alleged membership.
Held
The Supreme Court held that the High Court was fully justified in exercising certiorari jurisdiction and interfering with the orders of the Arbitrator and Tribunal. The original claimant was never admitted as a member of the Society and was therefore not entitled to allotment of a plot. The Civil Appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.
Conclusion
A High Court may exercise certiorari jurisdiction where a finding of fact is unsupported by the material evidence on record and amounts to an error of law.
Relevant Para
Para 14
“When the material on record is examined in the aforesaid context, it becomes clear that the Registrar as well as the Tribunal glossed over relevant documentary material on record. The High Court in the impugned judgment has indicated the same which according to us is the correct position obtaining from the record of the case. These documents include the resignation of the original claimant and its acceptance as recorded in the Minutes of the Managing Committee Meeting held on 05.05.1951 followed by transfer of the share of the original claimant to another member on 18.08.1951, the rejection of the original claimant’s application for membership as per the Minutes of the Managing Committee Meeting dated 05.11.1952 as well as the rejection of the request of the original claimant to permit him to pay the deposit for a plot of land as late as on 04.11.1979. The Arbitrator failed to consider these documents that were available on record, which if considered, would have resulted in only one finding, that the original claimant was not a member of the Society. Instead, it proceeded on the assumption that the original claimant continued to be a member during his lifetime.”
Case Details
Citation: 2026 INSC 927
Decided on: 31 August 2026
Case Title: Shri Prakash Narain Sharma (Dead Through Legal Representative) v. M/s. Burmah Shell Co-operative Housing Society (Regd.) Through Managing Committee Member Sh. P. Jindal and Others
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan J., Atul S. Chandurkar J.