SHRI PRAKASH NARAIN SHARMA v. M/S. BURMAH SHELL CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY (REGD.) & ORS.
Civil Appeal Nos. 10693–10694 of 2026 — Supreme Court of India — Judgment dated 31 August 2026
2026 INSC 927
HEADNOTE
Constitution of India — Articles 226 and 227 — Writ of Certiorari — Concurrent orders of statutory authorities — Scope of interference — Certiorari is supervisory and not appellate — Reappreciation of evidence impermissible, but interference justified where finding is perverse, unsupported by evidence, or constitutes an error of law apparent on the face of the record — Failure to consider material documentary evidence may justify interference. [Paras 12–15]
Co-operative Society — Membership — Claim of membership based merely on inclusion of name in membership list — Earlier resignation and acceptance thereof — Subsequent application for membership rejected — No membership certificate or resolution admitting applicant — Mere inclusion of name in a list could not establish continuing membership. [Paras 8–11, 14]
Arbitrator — Failure to consider material documents — Presumption of continuing membership — Perversity — Arbitrator ignored resignation accepted by Managing Committee, transfer of share, subsequent rejection of membership application and rejection of request to deposit plot amount — Finding that claimant continued as member throughout his lifetime was unsupported and perverse. [Para 14]
Co-operative Society — Allotment of plot — Membership a foundational requirement — Person never admitted as member not entitled to claim allotment — Equitable considerations — Existence of four prior claimants was an additional ground for refusing allotment. [Paras 16–17]
Certiorari — Concurrent findings — Ordinarily writ court does not disturb findings of fact — Exception where findings are based on no evidence, surmises or conjectures, or are wholly unwarranted by the evidence — Such perversity constitutes an error of law amenable to certiorari. [Paras 12–13]
Held: The High Court was justified in exercising certiorari jurisdiction because the Arbitrator and Tribunal had failed to consider material documentary evidence and had proceeded on an erroneous presumption of continuing membership. The civil appeals were accordingly dismissed. [Paras 15, 18]
I. ANALYSIS OF FACTS
1. Original claim for allotment of plot
Para 2: S.N. Sharma claimed to be a member of the Burmah Shell Co-operative Housing Society and, on that basis, claimed entitlement to allotment of a plot. He alleged illegal deprivation and initiated proceedings before the Joint Registrar, which were referred to arbitration. An earlier ex-parte award in his favour was eventually set aside by the Supreme Court, with directions to continue the arbitration from the stage at which the Society had been proceeded ex parte. [Paras 2–3]
2. Award after remand
Para 3: After remand, the Registrar/Arbitrator held that the original claimant was a member of the Society and had performed his obligations for securing a plot. The Arbitrator therefore directed allotment of a plot to his legal heir, subject to transfer of membership and payment of the cost of the land. The Tribunal affirmed the award.
3. Society's contrary case
Para 4: The Society maintained that the claimant had resigned from membership in 1951, that his resignation had been accepted, and that his subsequent attempt to obtain membership in 1952 had been rejected. Consequently, according to the Society, he was never a member thereafter and could not claim allotment.
4. High Court's examination of the record
Para 4: The Delhi High Court found that the Registrar and Tribunal had failed to consider relevant documentary material. It concluded that the claimant had not been admitted as a member after his resignation and that there were also four members having prior claims to allotment. The High Court therefore set aside both orders.
5. Documents subsequently identified as decisive
Para 14: The Supreme Court specifically identified the material that had been overlooked:
- resignation of the original claimant;
- acceptance of resignation in the Managing Committee Minutes dated 05.05.1951;
- transfer of his share to another member on 18.08.1951;
- rejection of his subsequent membership application in the Minutes dated 05.11.1952; and
- rejection, as late as 04.11.1979, of his request to deposit the amount for a plot.
These documents were not merely peripheral. They went directly to the foundational question of whether the claimant was a member at all.
II. CORE ISSUE
6. Principal legal question
Para 8: The Supreme Court identified the central question as whether the High Court, exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227, was justified in interfering with the concurrent orders of the Arbitrator and Tribunal, or whether such interference exceeded the permissible scope of certiorari jurisdiction.
The underlying factual issue was:
Was S.N. Sharma actually a member of the Society after 1951 and, consequently, entitled to claim allotment of a plot?
The jurisdictional issue was:
Could the High Court interfere with the concurrent findings when those findings had been reached without considering material documentary evidence?
III. LAW LAID DOWN
7. Certiorari is supervisory, not appellate
Para 12: The Supreme Court reiterated that the jurisdiction of certiorari is supervisory and not appellate. A writ court does not ordinarily assume the role of an appellate court or reappreciate evidence.
8. Jurisdictional error permits interference
Para 12: Certiorari may issue where there is a jurisdictional error, including failure to observe jurisdictional limits, procedural illegality, violation of natural justice, or an error of law apparent on the face of the record.
9. Perverse finding may amount to error of law
Para 12: Although an ordinary erroneous finding of fact is ordinarily outside certiorari jurisdiction, the position changes where the finding is unsupported by evidence, where the overwhelming weight of evidence contradicts it, or where it is wholly unwarranted by the evidence. Such a finding may constitute an error of law and become amenable to certiorari.
10. No evidence / surmises / conjectures
Para 12: The Court, relying upon Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v. Bikartan Das, reiterated that findings based on no evidence, or purely on surmises and conjectures, may be challenged through certiorari because they can constitute errors of law.
11. Patent error, not merely wrong decision
Para 12: Certiorari corrects a patent error and not merely a decision which the writ court considers wrong. The jurisdiction remains supervisory rather than appellate.
IV. APPLICATION OF LAW TO FACTS
12. This was not a case of mere reappreciation of evidence
Para 13: The Supreme Court held that the limited scope of certiorari did not prevent interference where an error of law was evident from the record. If a finding is made without supporting evidence or documents, the High Court is entitled to interfere because such a finding may amount to an error of law.
This distinction is crucial:
Ordinary erroneous finding of fact → ordinarily no certiorari.
Finding ignoring decisive documentary evidence / unsupported by record / perverse → certiorari permissible.
13. Arbitrator ignored documents directly disproving membership
Para 14: The Arbitrator had before it documentary evidence showing:
- resignation;
- acceptance of resignation;
- transfer of the claimant's share;
- rejection of the later membership application; and
- rejection of the request to deposit the plot amount.
Yet it proceeded on the assumption that the claimant continued to be a member throughout his lifetime.
14. Presumption could not replace documentary proof
Para 14: The critical defect in the Arbitrator's reasoning appears in its statement that the claimant's resignation and alleged subsequent re-entry were not tenable and that it had to be presumed that he continued to be a member because his name appeared in the list of members.
The Supreme Court treated this reasoning as perverse because the documentary record contradicted the presumption.
15. Tribunal compounded the defect
Para 15: The Tribunal affirmed the Arbitrator's conclusion in a short six-paragraph order. Since the foundational finding of membership itself was defective, the Tribunal's affirmance did not cure the defect. The High Court was therefore justified in interfering.
V. EQUITABLE CONSIDERATION
16. Prior claimants
Para 16: The High Court also considered that four other members had prior claims to allotment. The Supreme Court expressly approved this consideration as an additional reason for declining to interfere with the High Court's decision.
Thus, even apart from the membership defect, the claimant's claim could not be treated in isolation from the competing claims of prior members.
VI. CONSEQUENCE OF ABSENCE OF MEMBERSHIP
17. No membership — no enforceable claim to allotment
Para 17: Once the Court concluded that the original claimant had never been admitted as a member, the claim to allotment of a plot necessarily failed. The Court therefore considered it unnecessary to determine whether a plot was actually available.
This is an important logical sequence:
No valid membership → no entitlement to allotment → availability of plot becomes irrelevant.
VII. CONCLUSION / RATIO DECIDENDI
18. High Court correctly exercised certiorari jurisdiction
Paras 15 & 18: The Supreme Court held that the High Court did not exceed its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227. Its interference was justified because the statutory authorities had ignored material documentary evidence and had arrived at a perverse finding of continuing membership. The civil appeals were dismissed.
Ratio
A High Court exercising certiorari jurisdiction does not ordinarily reappreciate evidence or substitute its own view for a finding of fact reached by a competent statutory authority. However, where the authority ignores material documentary evidence which goes to the root of the dispute and consequently records a finding unsupported by the record or contrary to the overwhelming evidence, such perversity constitutes an error of law warranting interference by certiorari.
Final legal proposition
The judgment therefore does not dilute the limited scope of Articles 226/227. Rather, it reinforces the distinction between:
mere error of fact, which is ordinarily immune from certiorari,
and
a perverse finding arising from disregard of material evidence, which becomes an error of law apparent from the record and is therefore amenable to certiorari.
Result: Civil Appeals dismissed; High Court judgment sustained; no order as to costs.
