The High Court has the power to transfer proceedings from one tribunal to another under Art. 227 of the Constitution, even in the absence of any specific provision in the Motor Vehicles Act.

ORDER :- Petitioner filed M.O.P. 523 of 1982 on the file of the Additional Sub. Judge II. Chengalpattu, claiming compensation under S.100-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, since her husband was killed in a motor accident that took place at 7-30 p.m on 13-7-1982, near Kothari Chemicals in Ennore Express Road, when he was driving the van TN 7815. She claims that all the witnesses to be examined are in Madras and it would be extremely difficult for her to take all the witnesses to attend several hearings by Tribunal, located in Chengalpattu and by transfer of the proceedings, none of the parties to the proceedings would be prejudiced, if the Tribunal at Madras is directed to hear the matter.

2. On behalf of the first respondent-Insurance Company it is stated that by invoking S.24 C.P.C., the proceedings cannot be transferred, and hence, this petition is not maintainable.

3. This petition is filed by invoking S.24 and S.151, C.P.C. and during the course of the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner sought for permission to include Art. 227 of the Constitution and, accordingly it has been granted.

4. Article 227 of the Constitution of India reads as follows-

"(i) Every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, the High Court may-

(a) call for return from such courts;

(b) make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of such courts; and

(c) prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts shall be kept by the officers of any such courts.

(3) The High Court may also settle tables of fees to be allowed to the sheriff and all clerks and officers of such courts and to attorneys, advocates and pleaders practicing therein:

Provided that any rules made, forms prescribed or tables settled under Cl. (2) or Cl. (5) shall not be inconsistent with the provision of any law for the time being in force, and shall require the previous approval of the Governor.

(4) Nothing in this article shall be deemed to confer on a High Court powers of superintendence over any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces."

5. Supreme Court, in dealing with the scope and ambit of Art.227, held in Waryam Singh v. Amarnath. AIR 1954 SC 215, that it confers on the High Court a power of 'judicial' superintendence apart from and independently of the provisions of other laws conferring revisional jurisdiction on the High Court. It was observed that material part of Art.227 substantially reproduces the provisions of S.107 of the Government of India Act, 1915. except that the power of superintendence has been extended by this Article also to Tribunals. It was a case wherein the Rent Controller and the District Judge exercising jurisdiction under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1940 were held to be Tribunals, functioning within the jurisdiction of the Judicial Commissioner of Himachal Pradesh. Repelling the contention that Cl. (2) of Art.227 confers on the High Court only administrative superintendence over subordinate courts and tribunals, it was held that when Cl. (2) is expressed to be without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of Cl. (1). such a restricted power is not contemplated in Article 227.

6. In State of Gujarat v. Vakhatsinghji, AIR 1968 SC 1481, considering the scope of supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Art.227, it was held that Art.227 cannot be limited by any Act of the State Legislature and its supervisory jurisdiction extends to keening the subordinate tribunals within the limits of their authority and to see that they obey the law.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would then refer to Maharaja Kumar Gaibir Singh v. Sathir Singh. AIR 1968 Punj and Har 301, which took the view that, even assuming that S.24. C. P. C. cannot be invoked, for transfer of a case to another c