Court No. - 18
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5797 of 2018 Petitioner :- Rambha Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravi Prakash Singh Kushwaha,Ram Sheel Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Amrendra Nath Singh,Devi Prasad Mishra
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard Sri R.P.S.Kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Bipin Bihari Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appears for the State-respondent and Sri A.N.Singh appears for the Allahabad Development Authority, respondent no. 2.
Petitioner is before this Court assailing the letter dated 1.8.2018 issued by the Secretary, Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad as well as order dated 23.7.2018 passed by Civil Judge (S.D.), Allahabad in Case No. 246/18.
At the very outset, Sri A.N.Singh raised an objection that the petitioner has admittedly filed a suit being Original Suit No. 9 of 2018 (Rambha Pandey Vs. Secretary Allahabad Development Authority and others) in response to the order dated 14.11.2017 passed by Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Shivani Kesharwani Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others. The said suit has been entertained and the notices have been issued to the defendants-respondents vide order dated 4.1.2018. Thereafter, once the Allahabad Development Authority has issued the notice for demolition and to hand over the possession to the original allottee, the petitioner has approached to the civil court again and filed another suit being Original Suit No. 246 of 2018 wherein the issue no. 4 has been decided against the petitioner with the direction that the proceedings of subsequent Suit No. 246 of 2018 shall remain stayed till disposal of the earlier Suit no. 9 of 2018 vide order dated 23.7.2018. Sri A.N.Singh, in this backdrop, states that once the petitioner has filed the another suit, no relief can be extended in the matter and she is duty bound to hand over the possession to the original allottee in view of the due consideration of the allotment.
In the facts and circumstances, the Court has proceeded to examine the record in question as well as the order impugned and does not find any illegality or infirmity in the order impugned.
Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any manifest error apparent on the face of record in the impugned order so as to justify interference by this Court in extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Learned court below has 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.
In view thereof, I find no justification warranting interference with the order impugned in this writ petition.
The writ petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 20.8.2018 A.K.Srivastava