I.A. Ansari, J.

1. It is not uncommon for a Court of law to face challenge to its own jurisdiction and authority. It is not unusual that a Court of law is invited to decide if it has the jurisdiction in a given case and, if so, what are the parameters of its jurisdiction and powers. When such a question is raised, the Court cannot ignore or brush aside the question so posed and must decide the same in accordance with law. If the Court finds that it has no jurisdiction, it shall have no hesitation in saying so; but if it finds that it has the jurisdiction, it must boldly declare so and lay down the ambits of its own powers.

2. The legitimacy of the power of the Courts to review legislative action has been one of the most debated questions in the Indian Legal History. While presenting his views on the significance of Article 25, which corresponds to the present Article 32 of the Constitution of India, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, Chairman of the Drafting Committee of the Constituent Assembly, expressed himself as follows:

If I was asked to name any particular article in his Constitution as the most important-an article without which this Constitution would be a nullity-I could not refer to any other article except this one. It is the very soul of the Constitution and the very heart of it and I am glad that the House has realized its importance.

3. Notwithstanding the fact that Article 32 was described as the heart and soul of the Constitution, the parameters of the powers of even the Supreme Court under Article 32 to review legislative action has remained one of the subjects of intense debate in Indian Legal History. No wonder, therefore, that contours of the powers of the High Court under Article 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution come to be questioned before the High Court itself. When the question has been raised, the High Court has to answer the question and so do I.

4. I have heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties concerned.

5. The present set of Civil Revision Petitions and Writ Petitions have been resisted, at their very threshold, by the Respondents by challenging the maintainability thereof.

6. By this common order, I intend deciding the maintainability of the present set of Writ Petitions, for the maintainability of all these Writ Petitions stand challenged before this Court, broadly speaking, on similar grounds and for this reason, all these petitions have been heard together and the same are capable of being disposed of by one common order so far as the question of their maintainability is concerned.

7. The grounds on which the maintainability of the present set of Writ Petitions has been challenged give rise to the following three questions for determination:

1. Against an award rendered by a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which is appealable under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the MV Act), whether an insurer can invoke revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") on the grounds beyond those, which are available to an insurer under Section 149(2) of the MV Act?

2. Against an award rendered by a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which is appealable under Section 173 of the MV Act, whether an insurer can, under any circumstance, impugn an award in an application under Article 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India or whether this constitutional remedy is completely barred so far as an insurer is concerned?

3. Whether the power of judicial review vested in the High Courts under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India and power of superintendence conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution form part of the basic structure of the constitution and whether the powers, so given to the High Courts, can be taken away by amendment of the Constitution or by any piece of legislation?

8. Before proceeding any further, it needs to be carefully noted that the question Nos. 1 and