ESSEN DEINKI Vs. RAJIV KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Generally speaking, exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited and restrictive in nature. It is so exercised in the normal circumstances for want of jurisdiction, errors of law, perverse findings and gross violation of natural justice, to name a few. It is merely a revisional jurisdiction and does not confer an unlimited authority or prerogative to correct all orders or even wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Courts below. The finding of fact being within the domain of the inferior Tribunal, except where it is a perverse recording thereof or not based on any material whatsoever resulting in manifest injustice, interference under the Article is not called for :

(3.) The observations above however, find affirmative in thedecision of this Court in Nibaran Chandra Bag vs. Mahendra Nath Ghughu (AIR 1963 SC 1895). In Nibaran (supra) this Court has been rather categorical in record that the jurisdiction so conferred is by no means appellate in nature for correcting errors in the decision of the subordinate Courts or Tribunals but is merely a power of superintendence to be used to keep them within the bounds of their authority. More recently, in Mani Nariman Daruwala and Bharucha (deceased) through LRs. and others vs. Phiroz N. Bhatena and others (AIR 1991 SC 1494), this Court in the similar vein stated :