'Certiorari Is Not Appellate': Supreme Court Rejects Plea In Decades-Old Co-operative Society Membership Dispute

"The jurisdiction to issue writ of certiorari is supervisory and not appellate. The Court considering a writ application of Certiorari will not don the cap of an Appellate Court. It will not reappreciate evidence." Supreme Court, in a judgment dated August 31, 2026, upheld the Delhi High Court’s decision to set aside concurrent orders of a Registrar and a Co-operative Tribunal, reiterating that a High Court exercising certiorari jurisdiction is empowered to correct errors of law that are manifest on the face of the record.

A bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar observed that findings of fact based on "no evidence" or reached by ignoring vital documentary records constitute an error of law, thereby justifying judicial intervention under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

Evolution of the Dispute

The litigation originated from a claim by the late Mr. S.N. Sharma, who asserted membership in the M/s Burmah Shell Co-operative Housing Society to seek a plot allotment. Although an Arbitrator and the Delhi Co-operative Tribunal had initially ruled in favor of the claimant’s legal heir, the Delhi High Court intervened in 2010, finding that the lower authorities had ignored crucial documentary evidence, including records of the original claimant's resignation in 1951.

Scope of Judicial Review

The primary question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in setting aside the concurrent findings of the Arbitrator and the Tribunal. The Court was further required to determine if the reliance on documented membership records from 1951 was sufficient to override the claimant's assertions of induction into the society in 1952.

Court Clarifies Certiorari Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court emphasized that while the scope of interference via a writ of certiorari is limited, it is not restricted to procedural lapses. The bench relied on established precedents to explain that a finding of fact unsupported by any evidence is perverse and constitutes an error of law.

Court Identifies Perversity in Lower Orders

The Court noted that the Registrar and the Tribunal had glossed over critical documents, including the minutes of the Managing Committee meeting dated May 5, 1951, which confirmed the claimant's resignation. The bench observed that the lower authorities incorrectly presumed continuing membership despite a categorical lack of evidence for re-induction after 1951.

"Findings based on 'no evidence' are reviewable"

The judgment clarified that when authorities fail to consider material on record, the resulting decision is vulnerable to judicial scrutiny. The Supreme Court affirmed that a High Court is fully justified in interfering when the lower adjudicatory bodies reach a conclusion that no reasonable person could have reached based on the documents produced.

Equitable Considerations in Allotment

The Supreme Court also highlighted that the High Court rightly considered the equities of the case, noting that the society had other members with prior claims. The bench remarked that the mere deposit of money by an individual not admitted as a member does not create an automatic entitlement to a plot, especially when such claims bypass senior members of the society.

"No fault found with High Court's interference"

The Court concluded that the High Court’s decision to dismiss the claim was based on a correct assessment of the ignored documentary evidence. Finding no merit in the appellant's contentions, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and affirmed the judgment of the High Court, thereby closing the long-standing dispute regarding the membership status of the original claimant.

Date of Decision: 31 August 2026