Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S.
Namitha S. – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By The Secretary To Government, Revenue Department – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the background of the case, the administrative tribunal's order, and the disciplinary charges against the applicant. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. summary of rival contentions regarding procedural fairness and the scope of challenging findings in original applications. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. the scope of high court's supervisory jurisdiction under article 227 of the constitution in reviewing orders of lower courts or tribunals. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 13) |
| 4. application of legal principles to the case, confirming that lower tribunals acted within their authority and dismissing the appeal. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT :
Muralee Krishna S., J.
The applicant in O.A.No.564 of 2022 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram (the ‘Tribunal’ for short) filed this original petition, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging Ext.P7 order dated 07.08.2025 passed by the Tribunal in that original application as well as the Ext.P9 order dated 09.01.2026 passed by the Tribunal in R.A.No.3 of 2026 filed by the petitioner seeking review of Ext.P7 order.
2. The petitioner entered Governme
The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is not appellate; it is restricted to correcting manifest errors or perversity and cannot be invoked to reassess factual findings of a subo....
The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited and does not permit interference unless there is gross violation of legal principles.
![\+?>S0+47]+](https://supremetoday-s3.b-cdn.net/Kerala_3.png)
Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction limited to patent perversity or manifest injustice; no interference with Tribunal's enforcement of final service benefits order.
The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be employed to correct all errors of lower courts; it is exercised only in cases of grave dereliction of duty or manifest injustice.
The High Court, under Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction, cannot re-adjudicate findings of fact or substitute its own judgment for that of a tribunal unless the decision is palpably perverse, contr....
The High Court, under Article 227, upheld that disciplinary proceedings were lawfully conducted, with minor penalties validly imposed, affirming limited grounds for supervisory review over administra....
The High Court's supervisory power under Article 227 allows for interference only in cases of gross injustice or procedural lapses, reaffirming that a probationer's termination must follow proper inq....
The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited to correcting patent perversity or manifest errors and cannot be exercised as an appellate authority to re-e....
The court upheld that the High Court's supervisory role under Article 227 limits intervention to severe errors, while reaffirming settled matters should not be reopened.
The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 does not allow interference unless there is a manifest error or flagrant abuse of justice by the Administrative Tribunal.
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
