9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 1338 - SC - Indian LawsScope of extraordinary writ jurisdiction of a High Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. - Held that - It is to be borne in mind how the jurisdiction under the letters patent appeal is to be exercised cannot exhaustively be stated. It will depend upon the Bench adjudicating the lis how it understands and appreciates the order passed by the learned Single Judge. There cannot be a straight-jacket formula for the same. Needless to say, the High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution has to be guided by the parameters laid down by this Court and some of the judgments that have been referred to in Radhey Shyam 2015 (7) TMI 376 - Supreme Court Of India . (A) Whether a letters patent appeal would lie against the order passed by the learned Single Judge that has travelled to him from the other tribunals or authorities, would depend upon many a facet. The Court fee payable on a petition to make it under Article 226 or Article 227 or both, would depend upon the rules framed by the High Court. (B) The order passed by the civil court is only amenable to be scrutinized by the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India which is different from Article 226 of the Constitution and as per the pronouncement in Radhey Shyam (supra), no writ can be issued against the order passed by the civil court and, therefore, no letters patent appeal would be maintainable. C) The writ petition can be held to be not maintainable if a tribunal or authority that is required to defend the impugned order has not been arrayed as a party, as it is a necessary party. (D) Tribunal being or not being party in a writ petition is not determinative of the maintainability of a letters patent appeal.
Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of "original jurisdiction" in Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. 2. Applicability of Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution for writs against appellate tribunals. 3. Necessity of impleading the tribunal or court as a party in writ petitions under Article 227. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Interpretation of "Original Jurisdiction" in Clause 15 of the Letters Patent The Supreme Court examined whether the term "original jurisdiction" in Clause 15 of the Letters Patent should be construed in its plain meaning or in the context of the High Court's power to issue writs under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court concluded that: - The power exercised under Article 226 is in exercise of original jurisdiction, not supervisory jurisdiction. - The term "original jurisdiction" should be understood in the context of the High Court's power to issue a high prerogative writ like certiorari under Article 226. This makes the proceedings original, and the exercise of such power will always be original jurisdiction. Issue 2: Applicability of Article 226 and 227 for Writs Against Appellate Tribunals The Court addressed whether writs of certiorari against appellate tribunals should be treated under Article 226 or Article 227. The conclusions were: - A writ of certiorari can lie against the order of a tribunal or court subordinate to the High Court, even if it acts as an appellate or revisional authority, provided the case is made out to the satisfaction of the Court. - If a petition is only under Article 227 and the court allows the petition by setting aside the order, no Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) would lie against such an order. - If a learned Single Judge issues a writ of certiorari under Article 226, an LPA would be maintainable against such an order, even if the petition was initially under Article 227. Issue 3: Necessity of Impleading the Tribunal or Court in Writ Petitions The Court discussed whether the tribunal or court whose order is impugned must be a party in the petition: - If a petition is described under both Articles 226 and 227, and the tribunal or court is not made a party, the application for certiorari is not maintainable. However, it may be treated as one under Article 227. - If the tribunal or court is not impleaded in the main petition but is added in the LPA, the nature and character of the proceedings before the learned Single Judge do not change, and the appeal may not be maintainable. - A tribunal or authority required to defend its order must be made a party; otherwise, the writ petition can be considered not maintainable. Conclusion: The Supreme Court summarized its conclusions as follows: - The maintainability of an LPA depends on various factors, including the nature of the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the jurisdiction invoked. - Orders passed by civil courts are only amenable to scrutiny under Article 227, and no writ can be issued against such orders under Article 226. - The necessity of impleading a tribunal or authority depends on whether it is required to defend its order. The matters were remanded to the High Court to be heard by the Division Bench in accordance with the principles laid down in this judgment.
|
