Back
2007(3) JLJ 151
(Full Bench)
A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra and K.K. Lahoti, JJ.
Jaidev Siddha (Dr.) and others v. Jaiprakash Siddha and others
Writ Appeal No. 699 of 2007 (Jabalpur): on reference made by
Division Bench; Decided on 19.7.2007.
The cavil relates to the bar provided under the proviso to subsection (1) to section 2 of the Act as regards the entertainability and acceptability of an appeal from an order passed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
[Para 1
Held: It is quite livid and luminescent that the pleadings in the writ petition, nature of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, character and the contour of the order, directions issued, nomenclature given, the jurisdictional prospective in the constitutional context are to be perceived. It cannot be said in a hyper technical manner that an order passed in a writ petition, if there is assail to the order emerging from the inferior tribunal or subordinate Court has to be treated all the time for all purposes to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Phraseology used in exercise of original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in section 2 of the Act cannot be given a restricted and constricted meaning because an order passed in a writ petition can tantamount to an order under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India and it would depend upon the real nature of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. To elaborate whether the learned Single Judge has exercised his jurisdiction under Article 226 or under Article 227 or both would depend upon various aspects and many a fact as has been emphasized in the aforequoted decisions of the apex Court. The pleadings, as has been indicated hereinabove, also assume immense significance. As has been held in the case of Surya Dev Rai [2004(1) JLJ 1], a writ of certiorari can be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution against an order of a Tribunal or an order passed by the subordinate Court. In quint essentiality, it cannot be put in a straitjacket formula that any order of the learned Single Judge that deals with an order arising from an inferior Tribunal or the subordinate Court is an order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and not an order under Article 226 of the Constitution. WA No.3 10/2006, 2007(1) MPHT 335 and 2007(1) JLJ 364 approved. 2007(3) JLJ 220 overruled. AIR 1955 SC 233, AIR 1986 SC 1272, 1993 Supp1.(1) SCC 11, CA No.520/89, AIR 1993 SC 806, (1999)6 SCC 275, 2004(1) JLJ 1 (SC), AIR 2002 SC 1771 and 2007 RN 1 (SC) followed. [Para 7
(2) Constitution of India -- Arts.226 and 227 -- broad general difference between two jurisdictions of High Court -- writ of certiorari is an original jurisdiction under Article 226 -- exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Art. 227 is not original jurisdiction. 2004(1) JLJ 1 (SC) followed. [Para 15
Per K.K. Lahoti, J.
(3) Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 (M.P.) -- S.2(1) -- appeal -- when maintainable and when not -- single Judge exercising jurisdiction against order of inferior Tribunal or Court below -- if only order of Court/Tribunal is quashed by issuance of writ of certiorari, writ appeal lies -- if after quashing such order etc. further directions are issued under Art. 227, writ appeal does not lie.
The Adhiniyam of 2005 provides an appeal against exercise of original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution but has specifically excluded any appeal, if the High Court (Single Judge) exercises supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227. So where a person invokes powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a writ of mandamus, prohibition or certiorari and on exercise of such original jurisdiction by the High Court, an appeal is provided under the Adhiniyam, 2005. Similarly, in a case where a person invokes the power of supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 and on exercise of such supervisory jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 227, no such appeal is provided.
But when a composite petition under Articles 226 and 227 is filed, and on passing an order or judgment in the aforesaid writ petition, then determinative factor will be real nature of exercise of jurisdiction by the Single Judge against which an appeal is filed. If nature of the order is such that the High Court exercised its original jurisdiction under Article 226, were appeal is entertainable, but in case from the perusal of the order, it is clear that power of superintendence has been exercised under Article 227, writ appeal cannot be entertained. 2005(1) JLJ 358 (SC), AIR 1966 SC 1445, (1997)3 SCC 261, 1986 Supp. SCC 401 and 2004(1) JLJ 1 (SC) followed. [Para 8
¼1½ mPp U;k;ky; ¼[kaM U;k;ihB dks vihy½ vf/kfu;e] 2005¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 2¼1½ && ,dy U;k;k/kh‘k ds fu.kZ;A vkns‘k ds fo#) vihy && pykus ;ksX; gksuk && fjV ;kfpdk esa vfHkopu] vkns‘k dk Lo:i vkSj tkjh fd, x, funs‘k vkfn le>s tkuk gksrs gS && fuEurj vf/kdj.k ds vkns‘k ij vk{ksi lnSo vuq- 227 ds v/khu gksuk ugha ekuk tkuk pkfg,A fcraMk] Hkkjr ds lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 227 ds v/khu vkns‘k dh vihy dh xzkg~;rk vkSj LOhdk;Zrk ds ckjs esa vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds ijarqd ds v/khu micaf/kr otZu ls lacaf/kr gSA ¿ iSjk 1À vfHkfu/kkZfjr % i;kZIr lqLi"V vkSj lanhIr gS fd fjV ;kfpdk esa vfHkopu] fo}ku ,dy U;k;k/kh‘k }kjk ikfjr vkns‘k dh iz—fr] vkns‘k dh fo‘ks"krk vkSj :ijs[kk] tkjh fd, x, funs‘k] fn, x, uke dh i)fr] lakfo/kkfud lanHkZ esa vf/kdkfjrk dh izR;k‘kk ns[kh tkuk gksrh gSA vfrrduhdh jhfr ls ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd fjV ;kfpdk esa] ;fn mlesa fuEurj vf/kdj.k vFkok v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ls mn~Hkwr vkns‘k ij vk{ksi gS] ikfjr vkns‘k leLr iz;kstuksa ds fy, loZnk Hkkjr ds lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 227 ds v/khu ekuk tkuk pkfg,A lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 226 ds v/khu ewy vf/kdkfjrk ds iz;ksx esa vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2 esa iz;qDr okD;jpuk dks lhfer ;k ladqfpr vFkZ ugha fn;k tk ldrk D;kasfd fdlh fjV ;kfpdk esa ikfjr vkns‘k Hkkjr ds lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 226 ;k 227 ds v/khu ds leku gks ldrk gS vkSj ;g fo}ku ,dy U;k;kh/kh‘k }kjk ikfjr vkns‘k dh okLrfod iz—fr ij fuHkZj gksxkA lfoLrkj izfrinku ds fy, fo}ku ,dy U;k;k/kh‘k us viuh vf/kdkfjrk vuqPNsn 226 ds v/khu dh gS vFkok vuqPNsn 227 ds ;k nksuksa ds v/khu] ;g loksZPp U;k;ky; ds iwokZsn~/k`r fu.kZ;ksa esa ;Fkk cyiznr fofHkUu vofLFkfr;ksa vkSj igyqvksa ij fuHkZj djsxkA ;gk¡ Åij ;Fkk minf‘kZr] vfHkopuksa dk Hkh vlhfer egRo gSA lw;Znso jk; ds ekeysA ¿2004¼1½ ts ,y ts 1¼mPpre U;k-½À esa tSlk vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gS] lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 226 ds v/khu ds fo#) tkjh dh tk ldrh gSA lkjHkwr :i esa] ;g vfrfu;efu"B lw= ugha cuk;k tk ldrk fd fo}ku ,dy U;k;k/kh‘k dk dksbZ vkns‘k ij fopkj fd;k x;k gS og Hkkjr ds lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 227 ds v/khu vkns‘k gS] lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 226 ds v/khu ughaA fjV vihy Ø 310@2006] 2007¼1½ ,e ih ,p Vh 335 rFkk 2007¼1½ ts ,y ts 364] vueksfnrA 2007¼3½ ts ,y ts 220 myVk x;kA , vkb vkj 1955 ,l lh 233] , vkb vkj 1986 ,l lh 1272] 1993 lIyh]¼1½ ,l lh lh 11] flfoy vihy Ø- 520@89] , vkb vkj 1993 ,l lh 806] ¼1999½6 ,l lh lh 275] 2004¼1½ ts ,y ts 1¼mPpre U;k-½ , vkb vkj 2002 ,l lh 1771 rFkk 2004 jk fu 1 ¼mPpre U;k-½ vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 17À ¼2½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 226 rFkk 227 && mPp U;k;ky; dh nksuksa vf/kdkfjrkvksa esa lqLi"V lk/kkj.k fHkUurk && mRiszj.kk dh fjV vuq-226 ds v/khu ewy vf/kdkfjrk gS && vuq- 227 ds v/khu i;Zos{k.k vf/kdkfjrk] ewy vf/kdkfjrk ugha gSA 2004¼1½ ts ,y ts 1¼mPpre U;k-½ vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 15À U;k- ykgksVh ds vuqlkj && ¼3½ mPp U;k;ky; ¼[kaM U;k;ihB dks vihy½ vf/kfu;e] 2005¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 2¼1½ && vihy && dc pykus ;ksX; vkSj dc ugha && ,dy U;k;k/kh‘k }kjk fuEurj vf/kdj.k vFkok v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds vkns‘k ds fo#) vf/kdkfjrk dh iz;ksx && mRizsj.kk fjV tkjh dj ds ;fn dsoy vf/kdj.kA U;k;ky; dk vkns‘k vfHk[kafMr fd;k x;k gS] vihy gksrh gS && ;fn ,slk vkns‘k vkfn vfHk[kafMr fd, tkus ds i‘pkr~ vfrfjDr funs‘k tkjh fd, x, gS] vihy ugha gksxhA 2005 ds vf/kfu;e esa lfo/kku ds vuqPNsn 226 ds v/khu ewy vf/kdkfjrk ds iz;ksx ds fo#) vihy micaf/kr gS fdarq ;fn mPp U;k;ky; ¼,dy U;k;k/kh‘k½ vuqPNsn 227 ds v/khu i;Zos{k.k vf/kdkfjrk dk iz;ksx djrk gS] vihy fofufnZ"Vr% vioftZr gSA bl izdkj] tc dksbZ O;fDr ijekf/kdkj] izfr"ks/k vFkok mRisz"k.k dh fjV izkFkZuk djrs gq, Hkkjr ds lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 226 ds v/khu mPp U;k;ky; dh ‘kfDr;ksa dk vkJ; ysrk gS] rc mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ,slh ewy vf/kdkfjrk iz;qDr dh tkus ij 2005 ds vf/kfu;e esa vihy micaf/kr gSA mlh Hkk¡fr] tc fdlh ekeys es dksbZ O;fDr vuqPNsn 227 ds v/khu mPp U;k;ky; dh i;Zos{k.k vf/kdkfjrk dk vkJ; ysrk gS] rc mPp U;k;ky; }kjk vuqPNsn 227 ds v/khu ,slh i;Zos{k.k vf/kdkfjrk iz;qDr dh tkus ij ,slh dksbZ vihy micaf/kr ugha gSA fdarq tc vuqPNsn 226 rFkk 227 ds v/khu dksbZ laxzafFkr ;kfpdk Qkby dh tkrh gS vkSj mDr ;kfpdk esa vkns‘k vFkok fu.kZ; ikfjr dj fn;k tkrk gS] rc vo/kkjd dkjd ,dy U;k;k/kh‘k dh okLrfod iz—fr gksxh ftlds fo#) vihy Qkby dh xbZ gSA ;fn vkns‘k dh iz—fr ,slh gS fd mPp U;k;ky; }kjk vuqPNsn 226 ds v/khu ewy vf/kdkfjrk iz;qDr th xbZ gS] fjV vihy xzkg~; gS] fdarq vkns‘k ds ifj‘khyu ls ;g Li"V gS fd vuqPNsn 227 ds v/khu i;Zos{k.k vf/kdkfjrk iz;qDr dh xbZ gS] fjV vihy xzg.k ugha dh tk ldrhA 2005¼1½ ts ,y ts 358¼mPpre U;k-½ , vkb vkj 1966 ,l lh 1445] ¼1997½3 ,l lh lh 261] 1986 lIyh] ,l lh lh 401 rFkk 2004¼1½ ts ,y tsA ¼mPPre U;k-½ vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 8À
Misra, J. --1. (For himself and on behalf ofHon'ble the Chief Justice). Perceiving two conflicting views, one expressed in Smt. Shiva Dubey (Jheera) v. Sumit Ranjan Dubey (Jheera) [WA No.3 10/06], Lakhan Lal Sonkar v. Gun Carriage Factory [2007(1) MPHT 335], and State of M.P. v. M.S. Wakankar [2007(1) JLJ 364] and the other in M/s. Ramanand Co. v. State of M.P. and another [WA 342/06] [2007(3) JLJ 220], pertaining to the maintainability of writ appeal under the provision of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 (for brevity "the Act") the Division Bench referred the matter to the larger Bench to put the controversy to rest and further to have the certitude in the field on certain parameters. Be it placed on record that the cavil relates to the bar provided under the proviso to sub-section (1+) to section 2 of the Act as regards the entertainability and acceptability of an appeal from an order passed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In this factual backdrop the matter has been placed before us.
2. At the outset it is condign to mention that there is no necessity for advertence to the facts since the only question that has spiralled for delineation is when the Act by way of incorporation of the proviso to section 2 of the Act creates a bar for entertaining an appeal from an order passed under Article 227 of the Constitution, and further there is employment of the expression "in exercise of original jurisdiction" in the main part of the said section whether the appeal has to be restricted to an order passed under Article 226 of the Constitution exclusively.
3. Mr. R.S. Jaiswal,learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the law laid down in the cases of Smt. Shiva Dubey (supra), and Lakhan Lal Sonkar (supra), is absolutely correct inasmuch as the said decisions are in consonance with the view expressed by the apex Court in many a judgment. It is urged by him that the phraseology used "in exercise of its original jurisdiction" cannot be interpreted in isolation to convey and mean only an order under Article 226 of the Constitution in the sense that the order under challenge is not from the inferior Forums or Tribunals in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. It is his submission that the pleadings as a whole in the writ petition are to be scrutinized and the nature and various aspects of the order passed by the learned Single Judge are to be scanned to find out whether it is an order under Article 226 or under Article 227 of the Constitution for there cannot be a straight jacket formula or a mechanical process to treat an order passed by a learned Single Judge to be one under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution as there can be overlapping and interlinking.
4. Mr. R.K. Verma, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent No.1, sounding a contra note, convassed that when the language of the statute is absolutely unambiguous and clear, the same has to be followed in letter and spirit and by the interpretative process nothing should be incorporated to conveyor place a different meaning. It is argued by him that there is a significant distinction between an order under Article 226 and one under Article 227 of the Constitution and if an order arising from a civil Court or a Tribunal or any other statutory forum is challenged in a writ petition, the order passed in the writ petition has to be exclusively regarded as one under Article 227 of the Constitution and no other concept is invited. It is his further submission that in the decision rendered in the case of Rarn K. Co. (supra), there has been apposite analysis of the terminology in exercise of original jurisdiction and, therefore, the said decision should be given the stamp of approval and concurred with the Larger Bench.
5. To appreciate the rivalised submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to reproduce section 2 of the Act dealing with an appeal :
"2. Appeal to the Division Bench of the Hig
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
