Sudhir Agarwal, J.—

1. Heard Sri Vivek Prasad Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.

2. Under the cover of a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution this is in fact a suit for injunction and that too an ad interim injunction requiring this Court to grant the same in exercise of its extraordinary constitutional power under Article 227 of the Constitution.

3. I do not find as to how this writ petition is maintainable for the kind of relief it has been sought. The relief sought by petitioners may be reproduced as under:

"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the defendant/respondent not to interfere in peaceful possession of the plaintiffs/petitioners over ancestral property mentioned in the suit no. 23/13 pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Basti.

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the court below to grant interim injunction to the plaintiffs/petitioners against defendant/respondent restraining him from interfering into peaceful possession of the plaintiffs/petitioners over ancestral property in dispute."

4. This is a thoroughly ill-advised and misconceived writ petition and is not entertainable under Article 227 of the Constitution. The scope of judicial review in such matters where the orders of courts below are assailed before this Court in a writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution is very limited. This power involves a duty on the High Court to keep the inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do what their duty requires and that they do it in a legal manner. But this power does not vest the High Court with any unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Court or Tribunal. It must be restricted to cases of grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principle of law or justice, where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes.

5. In D. N. Banerji Vs. P. R. Mukherjee 1953 SC 58 the Court said:

"Unless there was any grave miscarriage of justice or flagrant violation of law calling for intervention, it is not for the High Court under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to interfere."

6. A Constitution Bench of Apex Court examined the scope of Article 227 of the Constitution in Waryam Singh and another Vs. Amarnath and another AIR 1954 SC 215 and made following observations at p. 571 :

"This power of superintendence conferred by article 227 is, as pointed out by Harries, C.J. in Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. Vs. Sukumar Mukherjee AIR 1951 Cal. 193, 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 mere errors".

7. In Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim and Ors. AIR 1984 SC 38 the Court held that this Court has very limited scope under Article 227 of the Constitution and even the errors of law cannot be corrected in exercise of power of judicial review under Article 227 of the Constitution. The power can be used sparingly when it comes to the conclusion that the Authority/Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction or proceeded under erroneous presumption of jurisdiction. The High Court cannot assume unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decision. For interference, there must be a case of flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or where order of the Tribunal, etc. has resulted in grave injustice.

8. For interference under Article 227, the finding of facts recorded by the Authority should be found to be perverse or patently erroneous and de hors the factual and legal position on record. (See: Nibaran Chandra Bag Vs. Mahendra Nath Ghughu, AIR 1963 SC 1895; Rukmanand Bairoliya Vs. the State of Bihar & ors., AIR 1971 SC 746; Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha & ors., AIR 1980 SC 1

Click Here to Read the rest of this document