2021 Supreme(Guj) 511

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J.
M/S COLORS TRENDZ PRIVATE LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
DEPUTY ENGINEER (O AND M) - Respondent
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14774 of 2020
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14775 of 2020
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14776 of 2020
Decided On : 12-07-2021

Point of Law: Jurisdiction-
1-The power to issue a writ of certiorari and the supervisory jurisdiction are to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases where the judicial conscience of the High Court dictates it to act lest a gross failure of justice or grave injustice should occasion2- Court is not inclined to exercise the jurisdiction to substitute the views as the same are not perverse to the record and the Court found that there is no material irregularity of any nature in arriving at a decision.

Headnote:

Constitution of India,1950 - Articles 226, 14 and 227 - Electricity Act, 2003 - Section 126 - Code of Civil Procedure.1908 - Section 115 - lease deed - Pay the registration charges and bring certain approval from Gujarat Pollution Control - Whether petitioners have legitimately exercised powers under Section 126 of Act or not - Petitioner that petitioner has also purchased three textile units existing in plot having consumer belonging respectively - Case of petitioner that it has applied for clubbing all respective connections and supplying power to proposed units situated at plot and the said application was submitted - Respondent company, according to petitioner, informed to pay registration charges and bring certain approval from the Gujarat Pollution Control Board to install vacuum circuit broker by communication - petitioner company is owner of all the three units and it had already started a process of clubbing all three connections and change of names of three connections as well - Petitioner at the time of checking also, representative of the petitioner company was present and before the appellate authority also, a specific representation was made by the petitioner company and objections were also lodged by the representative of the petitioner company - documents and taking note of with of the Code, held that all the three connections were owned by the petitioner and there was no breach of the provisions of Section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003

Findings of the court: High Court in exercise of certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction will not covert itself into a Court of Appeal and indulge in re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence or correct errors in drawing inferences or correct errors of mere formal or technical character - Parameters for exercising jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari and those calling for exercise of supervisory jurisdiction are almost similar and the width of jurisdiction exercised by High Courts in India unlike English Courts has almost obliterated distinction between the two jurisdictions - While exercising jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari High Court may annul or set aside act, order or proceedings of the subordinate Courts but cannot substitute its own decision in place thereof - In exercise of supervisory jurisdiction High Court may not only give suitable directions so as to guide the subordinate - Court as to the manner in which it would act or proceed thereafter or afresh, the High Court may in appropriate cases itself make an order in supersession or substitution of order of the subordinate Court as Court should have made in facts and circumstances of the case - supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts udder Art. 227 of the Constitution is limited "to seeing that an inferior Court or Tribunal functions within the limits of its authority", and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less an error of law - No error of law much less an error apparent on the face of record - supervisory power under Art.227, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or Tribunal - It will not review or re-weigh the evidence upon which the determination of inferior court or tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of law in the decision - Court found that there is no material irregularity of any nature in arriving at a decision - Earlier observations made by Court have attained the finality and apparently, the reading of provisions of Supply Code is not misread by the authority, this Court is of the view that the petition lacks merits

Result : Petitions stand dismissed