(1.) Heard Sri Manish Kumar Nigam and Sri Rahul Sahai, learned Counsel for the applicant.
(2.) This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against an order dated 6.1.2005, passed by Vth Additional District Judge, Varanasi, whereby the amendment application at the appellate stage was allowed on a cost of Rs. 100. The counsel for the applicant addressed this Court on the question of maintainability of the application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Reliance has been placed on a number of decisions in the case of Yashwant Sakhalkar v. Hirabat Kamat Mhamai 2004 (9 )SCALE38 , (2004 )6 SCC71 . The Apex Court discussed the scope and ambit of Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the case of Surya Devi Rai v. Ram Chander Rai AIR2003 SC 3044 , 2003 (5 )ALD36 (SC ), 2003 (5 )ALT19 (SC ), 2003 (4 )CTC48 , (2004 )1 GLR320 , [2003 (4 )JCR174 (SC )], 2003 (3 )KLT490 (SC ), (2003 )3 MLJ60 (SC ), RLW2003 (4 )SC 523 , 2003 (6 )SCALE133 , (2003 )6 SCC675 . The difference in jurisdiction between Articles 227 and 226 were held to be three folds. Firstly the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction is not an original jurisdiction and in this sense it is akin to appellate, revisional and corrective jurisdiction. Secondly in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction the High Court may not only quash or set aside the impugned proceedings, judgment or order as it is done while exercising the original jurisdiction under Article 226, but it may also make such directions as the facts and circumstances of the case may warrant. In appropriate cases the High Court, while exercising supervisory jurisdiction may substitute its own decision and lastly the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is capable of being exercised only on a prayer made by or on behalf of party aggrieved whereas the jurisdiction under Article 227 is capable of being exercised suo motu as well.
(3.) Sri Manish Kumar Nigam has also cited another case decided by the Apex Court in the case of Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India Ltd. v. Grapco Industries Ltd. and Ors. AIR1999 SC 1975 , 1999 (5 )ALT18 (SC ), [1999 ]97 CompCas117 (SC ), (1999 )3 CompLJ163 (SC ), 1999 (2 )CTC460 , JT1999 (3 )SC 619 , (1999 )3 MLJ98 (SC ), (1999 )123 PLR190 , 1999 (3 )SCALE674 , (1999 )4 SCC710 , [1999 ]3 SCR759 , 1999 (2 )UJ1010 (SC ). In another case decided by the Apex Court in the case of Achutananda Baidya v. Prafullya Kumar Gayen and Ors. 1997 AWC (Supp) 556 (SC). The Supreme Court has clearly defined the ambit of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The power of superintendence of High Court is not confined to administrative superintendence only but such power includes within its sweep the power of judicial review. In cases of erroneous assumption or acting beyond its jurisdiction, refusal to exercise jurisdiction, error of law apparent on record as distinguished from a mere mistake of law, arbitrary or capricious exercise of authority or discretion, a patent, error in procedure. A number of other decisions of single Judge and Division Bench of this Court have also been placed before me. After going through all the decisions and hearing the arguments of Sri Nigam I am satisfied that the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is more wide than one under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the circumstances, I am in full agreement that this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for redressal of grievances of the applicant is maintainable.