HAKAM DEVI Vs. PHUMAN SINGH BUTA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference to Division Bench has been necessitated because a learned Singh judge of this Court (D. K. Mahajan J.) has entertained some doubts about the correctness at the view expressed by Shamsher Bahadur J. in Phalgu Dutt v. Smt. Pushpa Wanti, 62 Pun LR 302: (AIR 1960 Punj 432) that authorities whose orders are challenged in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution must be impleaded as parties to the petition and the defect of their not having been impleaded cannot be lightly ignored. We are at this stage only concerned with the question whether it is necessary in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution to implead the Tribunal whose order is impeached in this Court under the said article.

(2.) IN Phalgu Dutt's case, 62 Pun LR 302: (AIR 1960 Punj 432) the learned Single judge observed that the remedy provided under Article 227 is of an extraordinary nature and there is no difference in principle or analogy in the case of a writ under article 227 which partakes of the essential characteristics of a writ of certiorari which is the subject matter of Article 226. It is desirable at this stage to reproduce articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. Article 226, as its marginal heading expressly suggests, deals with the power of High Courts to issue certain writs, end, is in the following terms:-Power of High Courts to issue certain writs

(3.) THAT the jurisdiction under Article 227 is not completely identical with the jurisdiction which this Court exercises under Article 226 would also appear to Una support from the view consistently taken by this Court that orders under Article 227 are not subject to appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, unlike orders under Article 226. This view has been taken in the following decisions, among others:-- Raj Kishan Jain v. Tulsi Dass, ILR (1959) Punj 859: (AIR 1959 Punj 291)and Braham Dutt v. Peoples' Co-operative Transport Society Ltd. New Delhi, 196062 plr 916: (AIR 19s1 Punj 24 ).