The High Court has the power of superintendence over all judicial matters decided by any Court or tribunal within the State under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and this power includes the ability to interfere in revision in appropriate cases.

ORDER : - This S.R. is sought to be filed as a Civil Revision Petition against the order dated 15-10-1951, in the nature of an award, passed by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Tiruvannamalai, in C.L. No.920/50-51.

2. The High Court Office thereupon took two objections viz., that this Civil Revision petition has not been filed within 90 days of the date of the order and secondly, that it does not appear that a civil revision petition of this nature can be preferred on the foot of Article 227, Constitution of India.

3. Taking the first point, there is a delay of 8 days and the learned advocate is directed to file a formal petition for excusing the delay and orders will be passed excusing the delay. This aspect of the case need not detain us further.

4. The maintainability of this S.R.as a civil revision petition depends upon the decision whether it would be open to the High Court to revise the order. Under S.51(8)(a) of Madras Act 8 of 1932 any decision passed by the Registrar under cl.(a) of sub-S.(2) or under sub-S.(5) shall be final and shall not be called in question in any civil or revenue Court. Section 57 prescribes a revision to the local Government or to the Registrar from such a decision. In this particular case the petitioner has not pursued the remedy under S.57 of the Act. Secondly, it is contended by the Government Pleader that Art.227, Constitution of India is not couched in such wide terms as Art.226 which enables the High Court to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases any Government, various writs for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution of India or for any other purpose and that Art.227 has to be construed as one conferring on the High Court no special authority beyond general superintendence on subjects set out under the various sub-clauses therein. Thirdly, it was contended that the tribunals contemplated therein are those tribunals which though not described as courts strictly speaking, discharge the same or analogous functions as are being discharged by Courts and that the Registrar is not one such tribunal synonymous with court. I shall now deal with these points one by one.

5. Point 1 : The clause inserted "that the decision shall be final", in S.51(3)(a) of Madras Act 6 of 1932 has been the subject of decisions of Madras High Court. This High Court has held repeatedly that this clause does not take away the right of a Court to interfere but only indicates the finality so far as the right of appeal with- in the department is concerned; see the Bench decision of the Madras High Court in - Valli Ammal v. Corporation of Madras, 23 Mad LJ 531. Dealing with the word final in S.287(3) of the Old City Municipal Act, See - Narasimha Rao v. The Chairman Municipal Council, Narasaraopet, 68 Mad LJ 162, - Ramasami v. Muthuvellappa, 44 Mad LJ 1. The exclusion of the High Courts jurisdiction is ultra vires has been held in - Ram Dubey v. Government of Madhya Bharat, AIR 1952 Madh B 57; - Jagannath v. Mt. Puniya, AIR 1952 Madh B 51; - Israil Khan v. State, AIR 1951 Assam 106; -Muhamad Baquar v. State of Hyderabad, AIR 1951 Hyd 82; and - Haripada Dutta v. Ananta Mandal, 56 Cal WN 124. Point 1 therefore has to be decided in favour of the petitioner viz., that the decision passed by the Registrar shall be final will not in any way prevent the High Court from interfering in revision.

6. Point 2 : The restrictions sought to be imposed upon the scope of Art.227, Constitution of India as well as confining the superintendence to administrative superintendence have been the subject-matter of a catena of decisions showing that the position taken by the Government Pleader is untenable. In regard to. the scope of Art.227 viz., whether it includes powers of judicial revision as contra-distinguished from administrative supervision alone, we must bear in mind the following facts. Under section 107, Government of India Act, 1915, Superintendence wa