Authority: Supreme Court of India

Order Date: 2 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellants – Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP) & Ors; Respondent – M/s City View Enterprises.
  • Civil Appeal No.: 7911/2023 filed by HSVP challenging an order of the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC).
  • Background: The plot in dispute was sold at public auction to a third party, which City View Enterprises later purchased for commercial use. City View sought a Completion/Occupancy Certificate, which was refused on zoning violation grounds.
  • NCDRC Orders:
  • 01‑Feb‑2016: A quorum of two NCDRC members dismissed City View’s claim, held that the transaction was commercial, the respondent was not a consumer, and refused the Occupancy Certificate.
  • 17‑Apr‑2023: In Miscellaneous Application No. 106 of 2021 (Consumer Complaint No. 202 of 2010), the NCDRC recalled the 01‑Feb‑2016 order, allowed the MA, and directed issuance of the Occupancy/Completion Certificate.
  • Intervening Court Order: Supreme Court in CA No. 236 of 2022 (order dated 07‑Jan‑2022) observed that a Miscellaneous Application could not be filed before the NCDRC in a matter already disposed.
  • Grounds of Appeal: HSVP argued that the 2023 NCDRC order violated statutory provisions, the earlier Supreme Court order, and that zoning violations precluded any indulgence.
  • Respondent’s Contentions: City View claimed the NCDRC erred in deeming the transaction non‑consumer and cited a Haryana state scheme under which its prayer could be considered.
  • Stay Application: IA No. 230578/2023 was listed for hearing on 02‑Sep‑2026 before Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Manmohan.

Final Outcome

  • The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the NCDRC order dated 17‑Apr‑2023, and revived the NCDRC order dated 01‑Feb‑2016.
  • It held that the five‑year delay by the respondent in agitating the 2016 order justified rejection of the Miscellaneous Application.
  • The reliefs sought in the MA were deemed substantially new and different from the original prayer.
  • All pending applications, if any, were disposed of.
  • The respondent may approach the appropriate forum, in accordance with law, for any further grievance.

Topics: Consumer Law, Zoning Regulations