IMPORTANT POINT
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.
No writ can be issued against the order passed by the civil court and, therefore, no letters patent appeal would be maintainable.
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.
Tribunal being or not being party in a writ petition is not determinative of the maintainability of a letters patent appeal.

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India – Articles 226 and 227 – Writ of certiorari – Available only to remove or adjudicate on the validity of judicial acts – Not an appellate but supervisory jurisdiction – Superior Court can only set aside or quash an order without jurisdiction or palpably erroneous but cannot substitute its own views for those of the inferior tribunal. (Para 6, 7, 8)
       AIR 1954 SC 440; AIR 1955 SC 233; AIR 1958 SC 398; AIR 1963 SC 946 – Relied upon
       (b) Letters Patent – Clause 15 r/w Articles 226, Constitution of India – Original jurisdiction – Jurisdiction under Article 226 is original in nature – But it should not be confused with the ordinary civil jurisdiction of the High Court. (Para 10)
       AIR 1947 PC 90 – Relied upon
       (c) Letters Patent – Clause 15 r/w Articles 226 and 227, Constitution of India – Order passed by a civil court – Can only be assailed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India – No intra-court appeal is maintainable against such a decision under Article 227 – Jurisdiction under Article 226 is distinct from that under Article 227. (Para 16)
       AIR 1967 SC 1; AIR 1955 SC 191; AIR 1960 SC 801; AIR 1963 SC 996; (2002) 4 SCC 388; (1989) 1 SCC 678; 2015 (3) SCALE 88; (2003) 3 SCC 524 – Relied upon
       (2003) 6 SCC 675 – Referred
       (d) Letters Patent – Clause 15 – Intra-court appeal does not lie against an order of Single Judge passed under Article 227, Constitution of India – Determination whether a case is under Article 227 – Nomenclature of the proceeding or reference to a particular article of the Constitution not final or conclusive – Observation by a Single Judge as to how he had dealt with the matter, also not decisive – Maintainability of LPA – Depends upon pleadings in the writ petition, nature and character of order passed by Single Judge and type of directions issued – Writ against orders of Tribunals always lie under Article 227. (Para 18, 24, 25)
       1986 (Supp) SCC 401; 1993 Supp. (1) SCC 11; (1992) 3 SCC 448; (1999) 6 SCC 275; (2006) 7 SCC 496; (2009) 10 SCC 584; (1993) Supp (1) SCC 9; (2008) 14 SCC 58 – Relied upon
       (e) Letters Patent – Clause 15 – Impleadment – Writ of certiorari – Court merely demolishes the impugned order – Presence of the offender before the court not necessary – Authorities or tribunals, who in law are entitled to defend the orders passed by them, are necessary parties – Need to be impleaded. (Para 31, 34)
       AIR 1959 SC 65; AIR 1955 SC 233; AIR 1963 SC 786 – Relied upon
       1924 1 KB – Referred

       Facts of the case:
       This case raises the question of maintainability of LPA under different situations considering the scope of jurisdiction of High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
       Finding of the Court:
       No LPA is maintainable against order of a civil court.
       Tribunal being or not being party in a writ petition is not determinative of the maintainability of a letters patent appeal.
       Result: Matter remitted back to High Court.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - (!) (!) (!) - (!) - (!) (!) - (!) (!) (!) - (!) - (!)

Question 1?

What is the maintainability framework for a Letters Patent Appeal in relation to orders of civil courts versus tribunals under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution?

Question 2?

What is the correct jurisdictional locus for challenging civil court orders: Article 226 original jurisdiction vs Article 227 supervisory/revisional jurisdiction?

Question 3?

What are the criteria for impleading tribunals/authorities as necessary parties in writ proceedings challenging tribunal or civil court orders?

JUDGMENT

Dipak Misra, J.

In this batch of appeals, by special leave, the appellants call in question the legal substantiality of the judgment and order dated 26.12.2013 passed by the Special Bench of the High Court of Gujarat in a bunch of Letters Patent Appeals preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

2. As the factual matrix would unveil, the Division Bench that referred the matter to a larger Bench, noticed conflict in Revaben Wd/o. Ambalal Motibhai and others v. Vinubhai Purshottambhai Patel and others, 2013 (1) GLH 440 and Dilavarsinhsinh Khodubha Jadeja v. State of Gujarat and others, 1995 (1) GLH 58 and at that juncture framed two questions. The Special Bench adverted to the facts necessitating the reference in detail and took note of the preliminary objections of the learned counsel for the State as regards the maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal on many a score and thereafter thought it appropriate to frame the questions afresh and accordingly it formulated questions.

3. At the outset, we may state that though eight questions have been drawn up by the special Bench yet we are disposed to think that they can really be put into three basic compartments, namely:

(i) In what context the phrase ‘original jurisdiction’ appearing in Clause 15 of the Letters Patens should be construed, that is, by taking into consideration the plain meaning of the same as the Court’s power to hear and decide the matter before any other court and review the same; or should it be construed in the context with the power of the Court to issue a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which is always original.

(ii) Assuming the words “to issue to any person or authority” as contained in Article 226 of the Constitution are interpreted so as to include the tribunal or the Court, then in such circumstances, would it be the correct proposition of law to say that appellate tribunal is not amenable to a writ of certiorari and the only remedy available to the litigant to challenge the order passed by an appellate tribunal is under Article 227 of the Constitution and, ancillary one, when a petition assails an order of the tribunal, be it a tribunal of first instance or an appellate tribunal, should it be necessarily treated as a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in every case or it would depend upon facts of each case, more particularly the grounds of challenge and the nature of order passed.

(iii) Whether in a petition for issue of a writ of Certiorari under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the tribunal/Court whose order is impugned in a petition must be a party to the petition so that the writ sought from the Court can be issued against the tribunal/Court, but if the petition is for the relief under Article 227 only, then the tribunal/Court whose order is under assail need not be a party-respondent on the reasoning that by entertaining a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court exercises its power of superintendence which is analogous to the revisional jurisdiction.

4. The special bench as is evincible from the judgment impugned, has delved into the questions framed by it, if we permit ourselves to say so, at great length and recorded its conclusions in seriatum. It is necessary to reproduce the relevant conclusions, which are as follows:-

“(iii) When a writ is issued under Article 226 of the Constitution, it is issued in exercise of its original jurisdiction whether against the Tribunal or inferior Court or administrative authority.

(iv) The power exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution is in exercise of original jurisdiction and not supervisory jurisdiction.

xxx xxx xxx

(vii) A writ of certiorari lies in appropriate cases against the order of Tribunal or Court subordinate to the High Court where such a Court, or Tribunal acts not only as an authority of first instance but even if such a Court or Tribunal acts as an appellate or revisional authority provid

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2015 Supreme(SC) 674