Back
High Court Of Calcutta
Salil Kumar Datta
SUJATA MAITRA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
Civilrevn 586 Of 1977
Decided On : 04/10/1978
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES - WEST BENGAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1973 - SECTION 69 - NOMINATION - INTERPRETATION - HIGH COURT'S POWER OF JUDICIAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERINTENDENCE OVER TRIBUNALS - ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION - AMENDMENT BY THE CONSTITUTION (FORTY-SECOND AMENDMENT) ACT, 1976 - SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY - TRIBUNALS NOT SUBJECT TO APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT - JUDICIAL INTERFERENCE - CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANTING INTERFERENCE.
Fact of the Case:
Dispute between petitioner and respondent No. 3 regarding shares in Surendranath Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and right, title, and interest in Suit No. 22 Unit No. 1, East Block of the Society. Petitioner claimed suite as heir and legal representative of deceased Tapan Kumar Mitra, while respondent No. 3 claimed suite and shares based on nomination made by deceased under Section 69 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1973. Arbitrator held heirs and legal representatives entitled to suite, respondent No. 3 entitled to shares. On appeal, Co-operative Tribunal confirmed decision on shares, held respondent No. 3 entitled to transfer of shares and membership, vesting suite in him with liabilities.
Finding of the Court:
High Court has no jurisdiction over tribunals and authorities not subject to its appellate jurisdiction and whose judgments are not subject to appeal or revision by the High Court. Amendment to Article 227 of the Constitution by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, confined judicial superintendence to courts subject to appellate jurisdiction of High Court or judgments of inferior courts subject to appeal or revision by High Court. West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1973, confers full powers on Registrar or arbitrator to decide disputes, pass interlocutory orders, and hear parties. Co-operative Tribunal has trappings of a court. However, these tribunals are not subject to appellate jurisdiction of High Court, and their judgments are not subject to appeal or revision by High Court. High Court cannot remedy defects or errors committed by such tribunals.
Issues: 1. Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to interfere with the impugned order of the West Bengal Co-operative Tribunal under Article 227 of the Constitution? 2. Whether the amendment to Article 227 by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, affects the High Court's power of judicial or administrative superintendence over tribunals? 3. Whether the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1973, establishes tribunals that are subject to the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court or whose judgments are subject to appeal or revision by the High Court?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court's power of judicial or administrative superintendence over tribunals is limited to those tribunals that are subject to its appellate jurisdiction or whose judgments are subject to appeal or revision by the High Court. 2. The amendment to Article 227 by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, confined judicial superintendence to courts subject to appellate jurisdiction of High Court or judgments of inferior courts subject to appeal or revision by High Court. It did not affect the High Court's power of judicial or administrative superintendence over tribunals that are subject to its appellate jurisdiction or whose judgments are subject to appeal or revision by the High Court. 3. The West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1973, establishes tribunals that are not subject to the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court and whose judgments are not subject to appeal or revision by the High Court. Therefore, the High Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the impugned order of the West Bengal Co-operative Tribunal under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Final Decision: Rule discharged. No order as to costs. Petitioner granted liberty to move appropriate court for redress on same cause of action and facts. Status quo to be maintained for three weeks from the date of judgment.
( 1 ) THIS Rule is directed against the order of the West Bengal Co-operative Tribunal dated Dec. 21, 1976 reversing on appeal an award of the Co-operative Development Officer and Arbitrator-II dated June 18, 1976.
( 2 ) IT appears that there was a dispute between the petitioner and the opposite party No. 3 in respect of shares in the Surendranath Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. as also the right, title and interest in Suit No. 22 Unit No. 1, East Block of the Society.
( 3 ) THE petitioner who is the widow of late Tapan Kumar Mitra claimed, with her mother-in-law, the suite as the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased while his brother, the respondent No. 3 claimed the suite as also the shares of the deceased in the society on the basis of a nomination made in his favour by the deceased earlier under Section 69 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1973. The Arbitrator held that the heirs and legal representatives are entitled to the suite while the respondent No. 3 is entitled to the shares of the deceased in the Society. On appeal, the Co-operative Tribunal while confirming the decision on the shares held that the respondent No. 3 was entitled to a transfer of the shares to him and on his being accepted as a member of the society, the suite would vest in him with all liabilities. The connected application under Article 227 of the Constitution was moved on Feb. 28, 1977 on which the instant Rule was issued.
( 4 ) MR. K. D. Mukherjee raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the application in view of the amendment to the Article 227 of the Constitution by the forty second amendment which came into force with effect from Feb. 1, 1977. It was contended that the High Court's power of judicial or administrative superintendence over tribunals end other authorities not under its appellate or revisional jurisdiction had been taken away and the impugned order being one of the West Bengal Co-operative Tribunal, this court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the impugned order. This contention is now to be examined with reference to the like provisions under tha earlier constitutional Acts. Section 107 of the Government of India Act, 1915 provides as follows:"section 107, Powers of the High Courts with respect to Subordinate Courts.-- Each of the High Courts has superintendence over all courts for the time being subject to its appellate jurisdiction, and may do any of the following things, that is to say:-- (a) call for returns; (b) direct the transfer of any suit or appeal from any such court to any other court of equal or superior jurisdiction; (c) make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of such courts; (d) prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts shall be kept by the officers of any such courts; and (e) settle tables of fees to be allowed to the sheriff, attorneys and clerks and officers of courts. "
( 5 ) IN considering the scope of interference under Section 107, Rankin C. J. in Manmatha Nath v. Emperor, (1932) 37 Cal WN 201 : (AIR 1933 Cal 132) observed:--"the general superintendence which this Court has over all jurisdictions subject to appeal is a duty to keep them within the bounds of their authority, to see that they do what their duty requires and they do it in a legal manner. It does not involve responsibility for the correctness of their decisions either in fact or in law. "the court was of opinion that if there is no evidence at all for the charge, or a defect of jurisdiction or fraud on the part of the prosecutor or error on 'face of proceedings,' these will be cases calling for interference under Section 107 even though Section 439 of the Cr. P. C. 1898 had no application. In Sholapur Municipality v. Tuljaram, AIR 1931 Bom 582, it was held that the District Court exercising judicial functions under Bombay City Municipalities Act, 1898 is a Subordinate Court under Section 107 of the Governme
AI
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
