SHIV KUMAR SHARMA, J.

( 1 ) FOLLOWING question has been referred to us for adjudication :-"whether intra Court appeal to the Division bench is maintainable against the order/judgment rendered by the learned single judge in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India?"supervisory JURISDICTION

( 2 ) IN our endeavour to answer the question, we may begin with noticing that the power of superintending control conferred by Article 227 of the Constitution is similar to the control exercised by the Court of Kings bench over the inferior Courts of England under the Common Law. The history of Article 227 and its scope were considered by the Apex Court in Waryam Singh v. Amarnath (1954) SCR 565 : (AIR 1954 SC 215)and it was indicated that the material part of Article 227 substantially reproduces the provisions of Section 107 of Government of India Act 1915, except that the power of superintendence has been extended by the article also to Tribunals. The history of Article 227 suggests that the framers of our Constitution believed that they were restoring to the High Courts the power which had been taken away by Section 224 (2) of Government of India Act, 1935. In the original Constitution of India Article 227 was devised to empower the High Court to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction not only over inferior Courts within its territory but also over statutory or quasi judicial Tribunals to ensure that all these inferior bodies exercise the powers conferred on them within the bounds of their authority and in a legal manner. But the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Courts over all administrative tribunals was abolished by the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976 on the ground that it caused delay and obstruction in the implementation of Government Policies. The pre-1976 position has however been resolved by the 44th Amendment Act 1978, so that all the Tribunals other than Military Tribunals are again brought under the supervision of the High Court.

( 3 ) ARTICLE 227 of the Constitution has been the subject matter of various decisions. In Baby v. Travancore Devaswom Board. (1998) 8 SCC 310 : (AIR 1999 SC 519), the apex Court held that the powers of the High court under Article 227 are in addition to the powers of revision conferred on it by other legislation.

( 4 ) IN Achutananda Baidya v. Prafullya kumar Gayen, (1997) 5 SCC 76 : (AIR 1997 sc 2077), their Lordships of the Supreme court observed that the power of superintendence of the High Court under Article 227 is not confined to administrative superintendence only but such power includes within its sweep the power of judicial review. The power and duty of the High Court under Article 227 is essentially to ensure that the Courts and Tribunals, inferior to High court, have done what they were required to do. The High Court can interfere under article 227 in cases of erroneous assumption or acting beyond its jurisdiction, refusal to exercise jurisdiction, error of law apparent on record as distinguished from a mere mistake of law, arbitrary or capricious exercise of authority or discretion, a patent error in procedure, arriving at a finding which is perverse or based on no material or resulting in manifest injustice.

( 5 ) IN Surya Dev Rai v. Ramchandra Rai (2003) 6 SCC 675 : (AIR 2003 SC 3044), the apex Court held that the power of the High court under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution is always in addition to the revisional jurisdiction conferred on it. The curtailment of revisional jurisdiction of the high Court under Section 115 CPC by amendment Act 46 of 1999 does not take away and could not have taken the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ of Certiorari to a Civil Court nor is the power of superintendence conferred on the High Court under Article 227 of the constitution taken away or whittled down. It was further indicated that power to issue a writ of certiorari and the supervisory jurisdiction are to be ex