2003 (8) TMI 527 - SC - Indian Laws

Permanent preventive injunction - High Court has summarily dismissed the petition forming an opinion that the petition was not maintainable as the appellant was seeking interim injunction against private respondents - Held that - The facts and circumstances of a given case may make it more appropriate for the High Court to exercise self-restraint and not to intervene because the error of jurisdiction though committed is yet capable of being taken care of and corrected at a later stage and the wrong done, if any, would be set right and rights and equities adjusted in appeal or revision preferred at the conclusion of the proceedings. But there may be cases where a stitch in time would save nine . At the end, we may sum up by saying that the power is there but the exercise is discretionary which will be governed solely by the dictates of judicial conscience enriched by judicial experience and practical wisdom of the Judge. The appeal is allowed. The order of the High Court refusing to entertain the petition filed by the appellant, holding it not maintainable, is set aside. The petition shall stand restored on the file of the High Court, to be dealt with by an appropriate Bench consistently with the rules of the High Court, depending on whether the petitioner before the High Court is seeking a writ of certiorari or invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court.

Issues Involved:
1. Impact of the amendment in Section 115 of the C.P.C. on the power and jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
2. Scope and exercise of the writ of certiorari under Article 226.
3. Scope and exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227.
4. Distinction between certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226 and supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227.
5. Maintainability of petitions under Articles 226 and 227 against interlocutory orders passed by subordinate courts.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Impact of the Amendment in Section 115 of the C.P.C. on the Power and Jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution:
The amendment in Section 115 of the C.P.C., brought by Act 46 of 1999, does not affect the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The High Court retains its power to issue writs of certiorari and exercise supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts. The curtailment of revisional jurisdiction by the amendment does not take away the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court.

2. Scope and Exercise of the Writ of Certiorari under Article 226:
Certiorari is issued to correct gross errors of jurisdiction, such as when a subordinate court acts without jurisdiction, in excess of its jurisdiction, or in flagrant disregard of law or principles of natural justice. The High Court, in exercising certiorari jurisdiction, does not act as an appellate court and does not re-evaluate evidence or correct mere errors of fact or law unless they are manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings.

3. Scope and Exercise of Supervisory Jurisdiction under Article 227:
The supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is exercised to keep subordinate courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. It is invoked when a subordinate court assumes a jurisdiction it does not have, fails to exercise a jurisdiction it does have, or exercises its jurisdiction in a manner not permitted by law, causing failure of justice or grave injustice. This power is broader than certiorari and can be exercised suo motu.

4. Distinction between Certiorari Jurisdiction under Article 226 and Supervisory Jurisdiction under Article 227:
Certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226 is an original jurisdiction exercised to quash proceedings of subordinate courts, while supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is not original but supervisory, akin to appellate or revisional jurisdiction. Certiorari is directed against the act or order of the subordinate court, whereas supervisory jurisdiction involves guiding the subordinate court on how to proceed further or afresh. Supervisory jurisdiction can also be exercised suo motu.

5. Maintainability of Petitions under Articles 226 and 227 against Interlocutory Orders Passed by Subordinate Courts:
Interlocutory orders passed by subordinate courts, against which the remedy of revision has been excluded by the CPC Amendment Act, are still subject to challenge under certiorari and supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court. The High Court may intervene to correct errors of jurisdiction or manifest errors apparent on the face of the proceedings that cause grave injustice or gross failure of justice.

Conclusion:
The appeal is allowed, and the order of the High Court refusing to entertain the petition is set aside. The petition is restored on the file of the High Court to be dealt with by an appropriate Bench, depending on whether the petitioner is seeking a writ of certiorari or invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court. The power to issue a writ of certiorari and exercise supervisory jurisdiction remains intact and is to be exercised sparingly and with caution to prevent gross failure of justice.

← Previous Next →