GANGALAKURTHI PATTISAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. R. No. 23086 of 1953 relates to a civil revision petition purporting to be filed under Article 227, Constitution of India against the decree and judgment of the District Collector of East Godavari at Kakinada in summary Appeal No. 41 of 1952. That appeal was against the order of the Deputy Collector, Peddapuram, in S. S. No. 11 of 1949, which was instituted for the recovery of emoluments attached to the office of the barber service in Tendapalli village of Pithapuram taluk. The suit was filed under Section 13 of Madras Act III of 1895 and the appeal was under Section 23 of that Act. S. R. NO. 17106 ol 1953 relates to a similar appeal under Section 23 of Madras Act III of 1895. The question is whether Article 237 of the Constitution enables a person aggrieved by an order of a tribunal like the District Collector to invoke the revisional powers of this court, or in other words, whether Article 227 of the Constitution confers on the High Court the power to interfere with the order of judicial or quasi-judicial tribunals. The answer to the question depends entirely on a construction of Article 227 which runs thus:

(2.) The origin of this Article goes back to the Charter Act of 1881 (24 and 25 Vict. Ch. 104), Section 15 of that Act in so far as it is material, ran thus:

(3.) Section 107, Government of India Act, 1915, was an almost exact reproduction of Section 15, so far as this part is concerned. Section 224, Government of India Act of 1935, which is the corresponding provision in that Act however contained an important qualification. Section 224(1) was identical with Section 107(1) of the 1915 Act, but Section 224(2) was in the following terms: