The discretionary nature of the power of superintendence under Article 227 and the binding nature of judgments rendered by the High Court on subordinate courts.

HARISH TANDON, J.

1. Both the revisional applications are taken up together for the sake of convenience and to avoid the prolixity of repetition of facts. Both the revisional applications are launched by the preemptors/petitioners challenging two independent orders, namely, an order, by which a direction was passed upon them to deposit the market price of the land being the subject matter of the preemption application and other one relates to the dismissal of the main proceeding itself because of non-compliance of the earlier order.

2. At the first blush this Court was of the view that the later order by which the main preemption application was dismissed is appealable one and the revisional application, therefore, is not maintainable.

3. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners invites my attention to various judgments of the Court, wherein it is held that mere existence of an alternative efficacious remedy cannot deter the High Court to exercise the power of superintendence enshrined under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is, thus, submitted by the petitioners that if the Court finds that there is manifest injustice apparent on the face of the record, the Court can interfere with the order, irrespective of the fact that such order is amenable to be challenged by way of an appeal, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

4. Before I proceed to deal with the other submissions advanced by the respective Counsels, the judgment relied upon by the petitioners in this regard needs to be noticed as it strikes at the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the revisional application under the aforesaid provision. In case of Ramesh Chandra Sankla and others v. Vikram Cement and others., reported in (2008) 14 Supreme Court Cases 58, the Apex Court succinctly decided the powers conferred upon the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and held that it is no doubt discretionary and equitable but the same is to exercise ex debito justitiae that is to meet the ends of justice in the following words:

"90. Now, it is well settled that jurisdiction of the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 is discretionary and equitable. Before more than half a century, the High Court of Allahabad in the leading case of Jodhey v. State observed: (AIR p. 792, para 10)

"10. ... There are no limits, fetters or restrictions placed on this power of superintendence in this clause and the purpose of this article seems to be to make the High Court the custodian of all justice within the territorial limits of its jurisdiction and to arm it with a weapon that could be wielded for the purpose of seeing that justice is meted out fairly and properly by the bodies mentioned therein."

(emphasis supplied)

91. The power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution conferred on every High Court over all Courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction is very wide and discretionary in nature. It can be exercised ex debito justitiae i.e. to meet the ends of justice. It is equitable in nature. While exercising supervisory jurisdiction, a High Court not only acts as a Court of law but also as a Court of equity. It is, therefore, power and also the duty of the Court to ensure that power of superintendence must "advance the ends of justice and uproot injustice".

92. In Roshan Deen v. Preeti Lal, dealing with an order passed by the High Court setting aside an order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, this Court stated: (SCC p. 106, para 12)

"12. ... Time and again this Court has reminded that the power conferred on the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is to advance' justice and not to thwart it (vide State of U.P. v. District Judge, Unnao). The every purpose of such constitutional powers being conferred on the High Courts is that no man should be subjected to injustice by violating the law. The lookout of the High Court i