Krashan Kumar Maheshwari vs Dr. Bitthal Das Maheshwari and Others

Sujoy Paul, J.—This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 08.02.2013, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC read with section 151 CPC and another application preferred under Order 47 Rule 1 are rejected by court below. This is second visit of the petitioner to this Court. Earlier petitioner filed an application under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC, which was rejected by the court below. Petitioner filed W.P. No. 6325/2012 before this Court. However, the said petition was withdrawn with liberty to file an appropriate application before the court below. In turn, the application under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC was filed. The court below rejected this application on the ground that similar applications were earlier rejected by the court below. The additional issue No. 7-B and issue No. 15 are already there to take care of the grievance of the petitioner. The court below opined that in earlier order dated 18.11.2010, the various aspects raised by the petitioner were taken care of and dealt with. There is no infirmity in the said order and accordingly, the court below had rejected the application aforesaid.

Shri S.B. Mishra, learned senior counsel, submits that the court below has erred in rejecting the said applications. However, learned senior counsel is unable to show any procedural impropriety or perversity in passing the said order by the court below.

In the opinion of this Court, interference can be made in these proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution provided the order impugned is shown to be passed by a court having no jurisdiction, it suffers from any manifest procedural impropriety or palpable perversity. Another view is possible is not a ground for interference. This view was taken by the Supreme Court in Shalini Shyam Shetty and Another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, . The relevant portion of the said judgment held as under:-

On an analysis of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the following principles on the exercise of High Court''s jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution may be formulated:

(a) A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is different from a petition under Article 227. The mode of exercise of power by High Court under these two Articles is also different.

(b) In any event, a petition under Article 227 cannot be called a writ petition. The history of the conferment of writ jurisdiction on High Courts is substantially different from the history of conferment of the power of Superintendence on the High Courts under Article 227 and have been discussed above.

(c) High Courts cannot, on the drop of a hat, in exercise of its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, interfere with the orders of tribunals or Courts inferior to it. Nor can it, in exercise of this power, act as a Court of appeal over the orders of Court or tribunal subordinate to it. In cases where an alternative statutory mode of redressal has been provided, that would also operate as a restrain on the exercise of this power by the High Court.

(d) The parameters of interference by High Courts in exercise of its power of superintendence have been repeatedly laid down by this Court. In this regard the High Court must be guided by the principles laid Shalini Shyam Shetty down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Waryam Singh (supra) and the principles in Waryam Singh (supra) have been repeatedly followed by subsequent Constitution Benches and various other decisions of this Court.

(e) According to the ratio in Waryam Singh (supra), followed in subsequent cases, the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction of superintendence can interfere in order only to keep the tribunals and Courts subordinate to it, ''within the bounds of their authority''.

(f) In order to ensure that law is followed by such tribunals and Courts by exercising jurisdiction which is vested in them and by not declining to exercise the jurisdiction which is vested in them.

(g) Apart from the situations pointed in (e) and (f), High Court can interfere in exercise of its power of superintendence when there has been a patent perversity in the orders of tribunals and Courts subordinate to it or where there has been a gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted.

(h) In exercise of its power of superintendence High Court cannot interfere to correct mere errors of law or fact or just because another view than the one taken by the tribunals or Courts subordinate to it, is a possible view. In other words the jurisdiction has to be very sparingly exercised.

(i) High Court''s power of superintendence under Article 227 cannot be curtailed by any statute. It has been declared a part of the basic structure of the Constitution by the Constitution Bench of this Court in L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India and others, and therefore abridgement by a Constitutional amendment is also very doubtful.

(j) It may be true that a statutory amendment of a rather cognate provision, like Section 115 of the CPC by the CPC (Amendment) Act, 1999 does not and cannot cut down the ambit of High Court''s power under Article 227. At the same time, it must be remembered that such statutory amendment does not correspondingly expand the High Court''s jurisdiction of superintendence under Article 227.

(k) The power is discretionary and has to be exercised on equitable principle. In an appropriate case, the power can be exercised suo motu.

(l) On a proper appreciation of the wide and unfettered power of the High Court under Article 227, it transpires that the main object of this Article is to keep strict administrative and judicial control by the High Court on the administration of justice within its territory.

(m) The object of superintendence, both administrative and judicial, is to maintain efficiency, smooth and orderly functioning of the entire machinery of justice in such a way as it does not bring it into any disrepute. The power of interference under this Article is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and Courts subordinate to High Court.

(n) This reserve and exceptional power of judicial intervention is not to be exercised just for grant of relief in individual cases but should be directed for promotion of public confidence in the administration of justice in the larger public interest whereas Article 226 is meant for protection of individual grievance. Therefore, the power under Article 227 may be unfettered but its exercise is subject to high degree of judicial discipline pointed out above.

(o) An improper and a frequent exercise of this power will be counter-productive and will divest this extraordinary power of its strength and vitality.

In the opinion of this Court, the court below has taken a plausible view, which does not warrant any interference from this Court. Petition is merit less and is hereby dismissed. No costs.