High Court Can Correct Perverse Findings Under Certiorari Domain: SC
Copy Link
Share
Save
Where lower tribunals disregard material documentary evidence and arrive at perverse findings of fact, the High Court is well within its supervisory jurisdiction under certiorari to set aside such orders. Reinforcing the boundaries of judicial review, the Supreme Court affirmed that a finding based on no evidence or sheer conjecture constitutes an error of law open to correction under writ jurisdiction.
A bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar dismissed civil appeals challenging a High Court order that overturned concurrent findings of an Arbitrator and the Delhi Co-operative Tribunal.
Key Takeaways
Limits of Certiorari Jurisdiction: High Courts exercising writ jurisdiction do not act as appellate courts but can set aside perverse findings that ignore material evidence.
Error of Law Correctable: Fact-findings unsupported by record or purely speculative constitute a patent error of law amenable to judicial review.
No Vested Right Post-Resignation: A former member who voluntarily resigns and is denied re-admission cannot claim entitlement to society property.
Court Observations and Rationale
The Supreme Court observed that the High Court rightly exercised its powers under Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Examining the parameters governing certiorari jurisdiction, the Court highlighted that while supervisory jurisdiction is not appellate, blatant disregard of key evidence warrants judicial intervention.
Relying on precedents including General Manager, Electrical Rengali Hydro Electric Project, Orissa and others Vs. Sri Giridhari Sahu and others ( "2019 INSC 1020": 2019 CaseBase(SC) 90) and Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences and another Vs. Bikartan Das and others ( "2023 INSC 733": 2023 CaseBase(SC) 1076), the Court reiterated the principles governing certiorari. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Findings of fact based on 'no evidence' or purely on surmises and conjectures or which are perverse points could be challenged by way of a certiorari as such findings could be regarded as an error of law... certiorari shall issue to correct errors of jurisdiction, that is to say, absence, excess or failure to exercise and also when in the exercise of undoubted jurisdiction, there has been illegality."
The Court noted that the Arbitrator and the Tribunal had completely glossed over documentary evidence showing the claimant's resignation in 1951, rejection of his fresh membership application in 1952, and rejection of plot deposit requests in 1979.
Ratio
A finding of fact recorded by a quasi-judicial body without supporting evidence or in disregard of material documents constitutes a perverse finding and an error of law apparent on the face of the record, making it subject to correction through a writ of certiorari under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Background
The dispute stemmed from a claim filed by the legal heir of an individual asserting membership rights in M/s Burmah Shell Co-operative Housing Society and seeking allotment of a plot. After an earlier round of litigation in Prakash Narain Sharma vs. Burmah Shell Co-op. Housing Society Ltd ( "2002 INSC 345": 2002 CaseBase(SC) 552) led to a remand, the Arbitrator under Section 61 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972 passed an award directing plot allotment. This order was subsequently upheld in appeal under Section 76 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972 by the Delhi Co-operative Tribunal.
Aggrieved, the Society filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court. The High Court set aside the concurrent orders, finding that both authorities had ignored critical records establishing that the claimant had resigned from membership in 1951 and was never re-admitted as a member. The legal heir challenged the High Court's decision before the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court exceeded its certiorari jurisdiction by interfering with concurrent findings, relying on Shalini Shyam Shetty and another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil ( "2010 INSC 422": 2010 CaseBase(SC) 817).
The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, holding that the lower forums acted perversely by presuming continuous membership without documentary proof. The Civil Appeals were accordingly dismissed.
Case Details:
Case No.: Civil Appeal Nos. 10693-10694 of 2026
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 927
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
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Senior Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ashim Vachher, Senior Advocate
Source: 2026 CaseBase(SC) 832
Breaking News
