SHANTI DEVI Vs. RAMAKRISHNA SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Article 227 of the Constitution has given the power of superintendence to the High Courts. What is the ambit and nature of this power? Whether in a proceeding under this article, it is open to the, High Court to take note of facts which were not on the record of the Court or tribunal over which the High Court exercises the power of superintendence? These are the important questions brought to the fore in this case.

(2.) Article 227 was not written on a clean slate. The ancestors of this article in the direct line are Section 15 of the Indian High Courts Act, 1861; Section 167 of the Government ref India Act, 1915; and Section 224 of the Government of India Act, 1935. We may not ourselves try to find out what these sections purported to lay down, because in a very detailed decision it has been so done by a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Umaji v. Radhikabai, AIR 1986 SC 1272, the sutra and substance of which is that the power is not only confined to administrative superintendence but also to judicial superintendence, as had been noted by a Constitution Bench-in Waryam Singh v. Amarnath, AIR 1954 SC 215, which was quoted in paragraph 102 in Umaji's case. It was then stated that the power of judicial superintendence has also to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases to keep the subordinate Courts and tribunals within the bonds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors. In a way, the power of judicial superintendence under Art. 227 is akin to the power under Art. 226. There is no dispute so far and for the present case we need not advert to the other aspects of Art. 227 so far as the ambit of the power is concerned.

(3.) The important question is the nature of the power under Art. 227. A reference to Umaji's case makes it clear beyond doubt that a proceeding under Art. 227 is not an original proceeding as is proceeding under Art. 226. The power under Art. 227 rather is in the nature of "revisional jurisdiction", as would appear from what finds place in paragraph 99. It is because of this that Umaji Bench held that an appeal against an order passed by a single Judge of the Bombay High Court in a petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution is available under Cl.15 of Letters Patent, as against an order passed in a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. This would appear clear from what has been stated in paragraphs 87, 91 and 99. Umaji's case, therefore, leaves no manner of doubt that while exercising power under Art. 227 of the Constitution, the High Court exercises power which is akin to its revisional jurisdiction.