Back
Bombay High Court
TULZAPURKAR,CHANDURKAR,SHAH
Shripatrao Dajisaheb Ghatge - Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Decided On : 04/22/1977
The High Court's power of judicial superintendence under the amended Art.227 certainly covers judgments of all Courts meaning thereby all regular civil and criminal courts constituted under the hierarchy of courts subject to its appellate or revisional jurisdiction but also extends to tribunals, bodies or authorities, whatever be their label provided two conditions are satisfied: (a) such tribunal, body or authority is basically a Court i.e. it performs judicial function of rendering definitive judgments having finality and authoritativeness to bind the parties litigating their rights before it in exercise of sovereign judicial power transferred to it by the State and (b) such tribunal, body or authority is subject to High Court's appellate or revisional jurisdiction.
Fact of the Case:
The High Court of Bombay was faced with a batch of petitions challenging the validity of various orders passed by lower courts and tribunals. The petitions were filed under Article 227 of the Indian Constitution, which grants the High Court the power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals. However, the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution had recently been enacted, which amended Article 227 to remove the words "and tribunals" from the provision. The question before the Court was whether the amended Article 227 would apply to the pending petitions, and if so, what effect it would have on the High Court's power of superintendence.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the amended Article 227 would not apply to the pending petitions, and that the High Court would continue to exercise its power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals as it had done prior to the amendment. The Court reasoned that the amendment did not contain any express or implied provision indicating that it was intended to have retrospective effect, and that the High Court's power of superintendence was a vested right that could not be taken away without clear and unambiguous language. The Court also held that the amended Article 227 did not curtail the High Court's power of superintendence over tribunals, but rather clarified that such power extended only to tribunals that were subject to the High Court's appellate or revisional jurisdiction.
Issues: 1. Whether the amended Article 227 of the Indian Constitution applied to pending petitions filed under the original Article 227. 2. If so, what effect would the amendment have on the High Court's power of superintendence over courts and tribunals.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the amended Article 227 would not apply to pending petitions, as there was no express or implied provision indicating that it was intended to have retrospective effect. 2. The Court held that the amended Article 227 did not curtail the High Court's power of superintendence over tribunals, but rather clarified that such power extended only to tribunals that were subject to the High Court's appellate or revisional jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The Court held that the pending petitions would be disposed of in accordance with the original Article 227, and that the High Court would continue to exercise its power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals as it had done prior to the amendment.
TULZAPURKAR, Actg. C.J. :- These four petitions have been placed before this larger bench with a view to ascertain the impact of Art.227 of the Constitution as amended by the Constitution (42 Amendment) Act, 1976 on pending petitions filed under that Article prior to its amendment and to consider the allied questions that arise under the said amended article. Each of the four petitions has been regarded as being representative in character of a large number of petitions that have been filed and are pending in this Court since prior to 1st February 1977, the date on which the amended Art.227 has come into force.
2. By Spl. Civil Application No.5377 of 1976 a certain decision rendered in appeal and confirmed in review by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 has been challenged by the petitioners therein under Art.227; the petition was filed on 9-12-1976 and rule nisi and interim stay were granted by this Court on 14-12-1976. Spl. Civil Application No. 1880 of 1973 is directed against an order dated 21-6-1973 passed by the Commissioner, Poona Division, rejecting an application made by the petitioners under S.88D(1)(iv) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, whereby the petitioners had sought revocation or cancellation of the exemption certificate granted to their landlord under S.88C on 5-7-1958; the petition was filed under Art.227 on 3-8-1973 and rule nisi and interim stay have been granted by this Court on 6-8-1973. In Spl. Civil Application No.1428 of 1975 the petitioners therein have challenged the validity and/or legality of two notifications - S.4 notification dated 25-8-1969 and S.6 notification dated 12-9-1972 issued under the Land Acquisition Act purporting to acquire the petitioners' lands for public purpose viz. resettlement of persons likely to be affected due to Krishna Dam Project under Art.227; the petition has been filed on 21-6-1975 and rule and interim injunction have been issued by this Court on 1-7-1975. In Spl. Civil Application No.1703 of 1975 the petitioner's (plaintiff) suit for possession against his tenant under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 was dismissed by the learned Judge of Small Causes Court at Pune on 5-6-1974 and against the dismissal he had filed an appeal to the District Judge at Pune and the learned Assistant Judge who heard the appeal allowed the same but remanded the suit back to the trial Court with certain directions; the petitioner-plaintiff has challenged the appellate court's order under Art.227 of the Constitution; the petition was filed on 1-8-1975 and rule and interim stay have been granted by this Court on 4-8-1975. It is thus clear that all these four petitions filed under the unamended Art.227 have been admitted and are pending in this Court on 1-2-1977 when the amended Art.227 has come into force and the principal question that has been raised before us is whether the amended Art.227 would be applicable to or affect in any manner these four and similar other pending petitions? If the answer to the first question be in the affirmative, the second question raised is whether this Court can and/or should permit the petitioners to amend their petitions so as to convert them into petitions under Art.226 of the Constitution? Yet another question raised is what is the true effect of deletion of the words 'and tribunals' from the original Art.227 and addition of the words 'subject to its appellate jurisdiction' after the words 'all courts' in the amended Art.227(1) on future petitions that might be filed after 1st February 1977 under the amended Art.227 ?
3. On the principal question as to whether the pending petitions (meaning petitions filed and admitted before 1-2-1977) under the original Art.227 would be governed or affected by the amended Art.227 which has come into force on 1st February 1977, Mr. Seervai appearing for the petitioners submitted that such p
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
