V SAVARIMUTHU Vs. SPL DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter comes up for orders regarding maintainability. Against the order impugned in this revision under Art.227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has the remedy of and ought to have resorted to a regular appeal before the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board under S.52, Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (46 of 1973), hereinafter referred to as the'Act'. He has not done so. On the ground that the impugned order ignores the policy of the Government and certain instructions issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, the petitioner wants to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Art.227 of the Constitution.

(2.) The power under Art.227 is an extraordinary power, and it requires to be exercised sparingly and with extreme caution. It is a power of superintendence reserved for this Court and is subject to its discretion and it cannot be claimed as of right by any party. By now, it has been settled by pronouncements of the highest Court in the land as to when this Court could properly resort. to and exercise the powers under Art.227. The well accepted contingencies and features to warrant the exercise of such powers are (i) lack of jurisdiction, erroneous assumption of jurisdiction or excess or jurisdiction or refusal to exercise jurisdiction; (ii) Grave dereliction of duty or flagrant violation of law or error of law apparent on the face of the record as. distinguished from a mere mistake of law or an erroneous decision of law; (iii) violation of the principles of natural justice; (iv) perverse finding founded on no material whatsoever; and (v) arbitrary or capricious exercise of authority or discretion. I am not able to spell out that this is a case where one or more of the above contingencies exist. In a recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim, AIR 1984 SC 38, adverting to the supervisory jurisdiction of High Courts under Art.227 of the Constitution, it has been observed as follows -

(3.) In the said circumstances, the revision cannot be maintained and accordingly the same is rejected. Petition dismissed.