The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of judicial review under Article 227, emphasizing that interference is warranted only in cases of grave miscarriage of justice or flagrant violation of law.

Sudhir Agarwal, J.

1. Heard Sri Kunal Ravi Singh, Advocate, for petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondents, and, perused the record.

2. Objections were filed by petitioner after expiry of period of limitation and application seeking condonation of delay has been rejected by all three Revenue Courts below. Hence, this writ petition.

3. It is contended that petitioner was pursuing another matter and therefore could not file objection within time, but it is not stated anywhere that while pursuing the matter elsewhere, why petitioner could not file objection within the period of limitation, particularly when it is not his case that thereat for all 24 hours of entire working days, every day he was busy in pursuing the matter. It is also not their that there was lack of knowledge to petitioner.

4. Since, all the three Courts below have recorded finding of fact that explanation furnished by petitioner is not satisfactory, I do not find it a fit case warranting interference in exercise of extraordinary equitable jurisdiction under Article 226.

5. At this stage, it may be mentioned that all the orders impugned in this writ petition have been passed by Revenue Courts and hence writ petition under Article 226 would not lie in view of three Judges decision of Apex Court in Radhey Shyam and another Vs. Chhabi Nath and others 2015 (5) SCC 423 , wherein Court has held that against judicial orders of Civil Courts, writ petition under Article 226 would not lie. Though it is a judgment in respect to Civil Courts, but the reasons assigned therein will apply equally to revenue Courts also.

6. Even if I treat this writ petition under Article 227 , the scope of judicial review is very limited since this Court does not sit in appeal.

7. In supervisory jurisdiction of this Court over subordinate Courts, the scope of judicial review is very limited and narrow. It is not to correct the errors in the orders of the court below but to remove manifest and patent errors of law and jurisdiction without acting as an appellate authority.

8. 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.

9. 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."

10. 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".

11. 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 specie