Court No. - 18
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6848 of 2018 Petitioner :- Rais Alam Respondent :- Chief Nagar Ayukat And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dharmendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Vivek Verma,Sanjai Singh
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 23.12.2017 passed by the A.C.M.M./Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court no.1, Kanpur Nagar in Case No.290/70 of 2012 and the order dated 14.8.2018 passed by the VIIth Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar in Misc. Appeal no.03/2018 (Rais Alam vs. Babynaz and others).
At the very outset, Shri Vivek Verma, learned counsel for the Nagar Nigam raised an objection that so far as the controversy is concerned, the same is already settled by this Court in Writ A no.21815/2000 (Km. Zeenat and others vs. Kanpur Nagar Nigam), whereby, the sister as well as the mother of petitioner has approached this Court by preferring the aforesaid writ petition assailing the validity of order dated 31.07.1999 passed by Nagar Nigam, whereby, the wife of deceased namely Baby Naz (third respondent) has been given appointment and consequently, the writ petition has been dismissed vide order dated 09.11.2017 and in pursuance thereof, the order impugned dated 23.12.2017 has been passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kanpur Nagar issuing succession certification in favour of third respondent, even, the same has been assailed in appeal but the same has also been dismissed vide order dated 14.08.2018. He further submits that once the appointment of wife has been assailed by the sister and mother of petitioner by filing aforesaid writ petition and finally the same has been dismissed on the merits of the case, in such a situation, there is no infirmity or illegality in the order impugned and no interference is required under Article 227 of Constitution of India.
Once such objection has been raised, this Court has proceeded to examine the record in question and finds that this is an admitted situation that the appointment of wife of late Qamar Haidar (deceased)/Sister-in-law of petitioner has been made on 31.07.1999 and admittedly the said order has been assailed by the mother and sister of the petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition and finally the appointment was found to be in order and the writ petition was dismissed and at no point of time, the said order has been assailed before the Higher Forum and as such, for all practical purpose, the same has attained finality and thereafter the order impugned has been passed and accordingly succession certificate in favour of the third respondent.
Both the Courts below have recorded findings of fact and unless these findings are shown perverse or contrary to record resulting in grave injustice to petitioner, in writ jurisdiction under Article 227, this Court exercising restricted and narrow jurisdiction would not be justified in interfering with the same.
In supervisory jurisdiction of this Court over subordinate Courts, the scope of judicial review is very limited and narrow. It is not to correct the errors in the orders of the court below but to remove manifest and patent errors of law and jurisdiction without acting as an appellate authority.
This power involves a duty on the High Court to keep the inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do what their duty requires and that they do it in a legal manner. But this power does not vest the High Court with any unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Court or Tribunal. It must be restricted to cases of grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principle of law or justice, where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes.
In D. N. Banerji Vs. P. R. Mukherjee 1953 SC 58 Hon'ble Supreme Court said:
"Unless there was any grave miscarriage of justice or flagrant violation of law calling for intervention, it is not for the High Court under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to interfere."
A Constitution Bench of Apex Court examined the scope of Article 227 of the Constitution in Waryam Singh and another Vs. Amarnath and another AIR 1954 SC 215 and made following observations at p.
571 :
"This power of superintendence conferred by article 227 is, as pointed out by Harries, C.J. in Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. Vs. Sukumar Mukherjee AIR 1951 Cal. 193, to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the Subordinate Courts within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors".
The Constitution Bench of Apex Court in Nagendra Nath Bora and Another v. Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam & Others AIR 1958 SC 398 settled that power under Article 227 is limited to seeing that the courts below function within the limit of its authority or jurisdiction.
Hon'ble Apex Court had an occasion to examine this aspect of the matter in the case of Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim & Others (1983) 4 SCC 566 in which Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited "to seeing that an inferior Court or Tribunal functions within the limits of its authority," and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less an error of law. For this case there was, in our opinion, no error of law much less an error apparent on the face of the record. There was no failure on the part of the learned Subordinate Judge to exercise jurisdiction nor did he act in disregard of principles of natural justice. Nor was the procedure adopted by him not in consonance with the procedure established by law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or Tribunal. It will not review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior court or tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of law in the decision."
The said view has also been reiterated by the Apex Court in Laxmikant Revchand Bhojwani & Another v. Pratapsing Mohansingh Pardeshi (1995) 6 SCC 576 and the Apex Court had again cautioned that the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot assume unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions. It must be restricted to cases of grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice, where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes.
A three-Judge Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in Rena Drego (Mrs.) v. Lalchand Soni & Others (1998) 3 SCC 341 again abundantly made it clear that the High Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the subordinate court or the tribunal while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227. Its function is limited to seeing that the subordinate court or the tribunal functions within the limits of its authority. It cannot correct mere errors of fact by examining the evidence and re-appreciating it.
In Jasbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2006 ) 8 SCC 294, the Apex Court said:
"...while invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution, it is provided that the High Court would exercise such powers most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority. The power of superintendence exercised over the subordinate courts and tribunals does not imply that the High Court can intervene in the judicial functions of the lower judiciary. The independence of the subordinate courts in the discharge of their judicial functions is of paramount importance, just as the independence of the superior courts in the discharge of their judicial functions."
In Shalini Shyam Shetty and another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil (2010) 8 SCC 329, the Apex Court said that power of interference under Article 227 is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and Courts subordinate to High Court. The above authority has been cited and followed in Kokkanda B. Poondacha and others Vs. K.D. Ganapathi and another AIR 2011 SC 1353 and Bandaru Satyanarayana Vs. Imandi Anasuya (2011) 12 SCC 650.
In view thereof, I find no justification warranting interference with the orders impugned in this writ petition.
The writ petition sans merit and is accordingly
dismissed.
Order Date :- 14.9.2018 A. Pandey