The power of 'superintendence' conferred upon the High Court under Art.227 is not confined to administrative superintendence only but includes the power of 'judicial revision' also even in cases where no appeal or revision lies to the High Court under the ordinary law. The Court emphasized the need for strict compliance with the provisions of the Acts and held that technicalities have to be strictly complied with by the petitioner.

P.A. Mohammed, J.

1. The common question involved in this batch of writ petitions relates to the power of this Court under Art.226 or 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the interlocutory orders passed by the Courts/Election Tribunals in deciding the election petitions arising out of the elections to the local bodies like Panchayat, Municipal Corporations etc. The elections to the Panchayats and Municipal Corporations are regulated by the provisions contained in Chap.10 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and Chap.10 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, as the case may be. The election involved in O.P. No. 13650 of 1996 relates to the Municipal Corporation and the rest of the writ petitions relate to election to Panchayats.

2. At the outset, it was argued on behalf of the contesting respondents that these writ petitions are not maintainable in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Bhargavan v. Majeed (1960 KLT 1262) inasmuch as the orders challenged are purely interlocutory orders passed by Election Tribunals in the main Election Petitions pending before them. In order to decide this question it is essential to examine the ambit and scope of the powers of this Court under Art.226 and 227, the nature of the interlocutory orders and the true scope of the principles laid down by the Division Bench in the aforesaid case.

3. The writ petitions, O. P. Nos. 11280, 11222 and 10853 of 1996 are specifically filed under Art.227 of the Constitution of India invoking the power of superintendence in view of the decision of this Court in Leela v. Pushpam (1996 (2) KLT 350) wherein it is held that the orders of the Munsiff's Court while hearing an election petition under the Panchayat Raj Act are not revisable under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In this context what immediately strikes the attention of this Court is the famous observation of Harries, C. J. in Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. v. Sukumar Mukharjee (AIR 1951 Cal. 193):

"Though this Court has a right to interfere with decisions of Courts and Tribunals under its power of superintendence, it appears to me that right must be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases."

Now let us examine as to how the Supreme Court magnified the extent of this power of superintendence under Art.227 of the Constitution. On behalf of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, S. R. Das, J. in Waryan Singh and another v. Amarnath and another (AIR 1954 SC 215) observed thus:

"This power of superintendence conferred by Art.227 is, as pointed out by Harries C. J. in Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. v. Sukumar Mukherjee AIR 1951 Cal 193 (SB) to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the Subordinate Courts within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting more errors. As rightly pointed out by the Judicial Commissioner in the case before us the lower Courts in refusing to make an order for ejectment acted arbitrarily. The lower Courts realised the legal position but in effect declined to do what was by S.13(2)(i) incumbent on them to do and thereby refused to exercise jurisdiction vested in them by law. It was, therefore, a case which called for an interference by the Court of the Judicial Commissioner and it acted quite properly in doing so."

In Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat 1991 (4) SCC 406): the Supreme Court held:

"Art.227 confers supervisory jurisdiction on the High Court and in exercise of that power High Court may correct judicial orders of subordinate Courts, in addition to that, the High Court has administrative control over the subordinate Courts."

Thus it is safe to hold that the power of 'superintendence' conferred upon the High Court under Art.227 is not confined to administrative superintendence only but includes the power of 'judicial revision' also even in cases where no appeal or revision lies to the High Court under the ordinary law.

4. The Supreme Court after discussing the d