Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(HP) 6315
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Bipin Chander Negi, J
Label Chand @ Albel Chand – Appellant
Versus
Sita Devi – Respondent
CMPMO No.276 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. Somesh Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondents: Nemo
The High Court emphasized the distinction between judicial acts and ministerial acts, stating that Civil Court orders are not challengeable under Article 227.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 and Article 227 - Jurisdiction of High Courts - The High Court's powers extend to issuing orders, writs, or directions as necessary for enforcement of rights - Certiorari is meant to supervise judicial acts, distinguishing them from purely ministerial acts - Judicial orders from Civil Courts are not amenable to a writ of certiorari. (Paras 3, 4, 5)
(B) Judicial Authority - Definition and differentiation of judicial acts and orders of Civil Courts - Appellate authority exercising powers as a judicial officer is amenable to challenge under Article 227 only in matters delineated for exercise of such jurisdiction. (Paras 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the decision by the Financial Commissioner regarding partition, arguing that the appropriate writ should be sought under Article 226 instead of Article 227.
Findings of Court:
The court noted a possible misapplication of Article 227 and permitted the petitioner to file under Article 226 instead.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the challenge to the impugned judgment could proceed under Article 227.
Ratio Decidendi: A writ under Article 226 should have been sought for challenging the impugned judicial acts, as distinctions exist between judicial orders of Civil Courts and quasi-judicial functions.
Result: Petition dismissed as withdrawn.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdiction under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. distinction between judicial acts and orders from civil courts. (Para 4 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. petitioner's withdrawal and refiling under appropriate jurisdiction. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : Mr. Somesh Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondent : Nemo.
Bipin Chan der Negi, Judge (oral )
Initially, vide order dated 16.04.1996, passed in Case No.14/9 of
91-92, the Assistant Collector First Grade had prepared a mode of partition. The same was assailed before the Collector. The challenge to the same was rejected vide impugned order dated 10.03.1997 (Annexure P-3). The judgment passed by the Collector, Sub Division, Solan dated 10.03.1997 was assailed before the Divisional Commissioner. The Divisional Commissioner found merit in the same and recommended the matter to the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) for appropriate decision, as per the law. The said judgment was dated 28.05.2018. However, vide impugned judgment dated 09.08.2024, the Financial Commissioner did not accept the recommendations made by the Divisional Commissioner
on 28.12.2018. The challenge to the impugned judgment passed on 09.08.2024 by the Financial Commissioner has been made under Article
227 of the Constitution of India .
2. Maintainability of the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is debatable/questionable.
3. The language used in Article 226 of the Constitution is very wide and the powers of all the High Courts in India extend to issuing of orders, writs or directions including writs tin the nature of ‘habeas corpus, mandamus, quo warranto, prohibition and certiorari’ as may be considered necessary for enforcement of the fundamental rights and in the case of the High Courts, for other purposes as well. In view of the express provision, in our Constitution the High Court can make an order or issue a w rit in the nature of certiorari in all appropriate cases and in appropriate manner, so long as the High Court adheres to the broad and fundamental principles that regulate the exercise of jurisdiction in the matter of granting such writs in English law.
4. Certiorari was meant to supervise “judicial acts”. The expression “judicial acts” includes the exercise of quasi-judicial functions by administrative bodies or other authorities or persons obliged to exercise such functions and is used in contrast with what are purely ministerial acts. “Judicial acts” are not meant to refer to judicial orders of Civil Courts. 5. A distinction has been made between judicial orders of inferior Courts of civil jurisdiction and orders of inferior tribunals or Court which are not Civil Courts and which cannot pass judicial orders. Therefore, judicial orders passed by Civil Courts of plenary jurisdiction stand on a different footing. Judicial orders of Civil Courts are not amenable to a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (Refer to 2015 (5) SCC 423, titled Radhey Shyam and Another Vs. Chabbi Nath &
Others).
6. In case reported 2018 (15) SCC 356, titled Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Nandini J. Shah and Others , an order passed by an appellate authority under thet relevant Public Premises Act was assailed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court. In the said case challenge under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was upheld as under the relevant Public Premises Act therein, the appellate authority by virtue of Section 9 thereof was the District Judge of the District i n which the public premises was situate or such other judicial officer with the required qualifications as were specified in the concerned Act.
7. Keeping in view the aforesaid provision, it was held that the appellate authority was exercising powers therein not in his capacity as a p
