ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 09-09-2024 The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following relief:-

“1(i). To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 20.04.2015 (Annexure -6), passed in Misc. Appeal No. 03 of 2012, by the learned Sub- Judge -IV, Danapur, by which the learned Sub-Judge was pleased to hold "mijksDr foospuk ls Li’V gS fd U;k;ihB ;k xzke dpgjh }kjk fcuk i{kdkjksa dh lgefr ;k fyf[kr djkj ds nl gtkj ls vf/kd lEifÙk ds fookn dk fu’iknu fd;k x;k lkFk gha {ks=kf/kdkj ls ckgj tkdj fcuk fookn esa yk;s ;k i{kdkjksa dh lgefr fy, nlw js IykV dks fookn esa lfEefyr fd;k x;kA blds vykok lEifÙk dk eqY;kadu fcuk fdlh izkf/kd`r ,tsUlh ;k ljdkjh nj bR;kfn dk izfrosnu izkIr fd, vius LosPNk ls dj fn;k x;k rFkk fookn esa fof/k dk tfVy iz”u rFkk Lo:i dk ekeyk jgrs gq, mls l{ke U;k;ky; esa ugha Hkstk x;k blfy, vihydÙkkZ dk vihy Lohdkj djus ;ksX; gSA vr%

vkns”k vihydÙkkZ dk vihy lla?k’kZ [kpkZ ds lkFk Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA ”

(ii). To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 20.04.2015 (Annexure 6), passed in Misc. Appeal No. 03 of 2012, by the learned Sub- Judge -IV, Danapur, by which the learned Sub-Judge, in complete departure of sub-section (a) & (b) of Section 110 of the Bihar Panchyat Raj Act, 2006, passed the order and set aside the order dated 11.01.2010 (Annexure-4), passed by the Full Bench of Gram Katchahari Anandpur, hence the order impugned dated 20.04.2015 (Annexure-6), passed in Misc. Appeal No. 03 of 2012, is fit to be set aside.”

2. The learned counsel for the parties have pointed out, at the outset, that earlier writ petitions were being filed against the interlocutory orders (such orders which have not finally decided the suits or proceedings in favour of the parties and the suits or such proceedings have not stood disposed off), in view of the law laid down by the learned Division Bench of this Court in a judgment dated 13.05.2010, passed in C.R. no. 1067 of 2009 (Durga Devi v. Vijay Kumar Poddar & Ors.), however, subsequently, the Hon’ble Apex Court, by a judgment rendered in the case of Radhey Shyam and Another v. Chhabi Nath and Others, reported in (2015) 5 SCC 423, has held that judicial orders of the Civil Court are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is distinct from the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It would be relevant to reproduce paragraphs no. 18 and 25 to 30 of the said judgment rendered in the case of Radhey Shyam and Another (supra) hereinbelow :-

18. While the above judgments dealt with the question whether judicial order could violate a fundamental right, it was clearly laid down that challenge to judicial orders could lie by way of appeal or revision or under Article 227 and not by way of a writ under Articles

226 and 32.

25. It is true that this Court has laid down that technicalities associated with the prerogative writs in England have no role to play under our constitutional scheme. There is no parallel system of King's Court in India and of all the other courts having limited jurisdiction subject to the supervision of the King's Court. Courts are set up under the Constitution or the laws. All the courts in the jurisdiction of a High Court are subordinate to it and subject to its control and supervision under Article 227. Writ jurisdiction is constitutionally conferred on all the High Courts. Broad principles of writ jurisdiction followed in England are applicable to India and a writ of certiorari lies against patently erroneous or without jurisdiction orders of tribunals or authorities or courts other than judicial courts. There are no precedents in India for the High Courts to issue writs to the subordinate courts. Control of working of the subordinate courts in dealing with their judicial orders is exercised by way of appellate or revisional powers or power of superintendence under Article