WEATHER THE WRIT UNDER ARTICLE 227 IS MAINTAINABLE?

Respondent humbly submits that Petition filed under Article 227, can be called ‘writ
petition’. And No writ petition can be moved under Art. 227 nor can a writ be issued under
Art. 227. Therefore, a petition filed under Art. 227 cannot be called a writ petition. This is
clearly the constitutional position Shalini Shyam Shetty v Rajendra Shankar Patil1.
Article 227 determines every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals
throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction . Article 226/227 cannot be
invoked for directing the authorities to act contrary to law. lt is not permissible for the High
Court, even while acting under sec. 226 of the Constitution, to direct the authorities under the
Act to act contrary to the aforesaid statutory provision.
The power conferred by Article 226/227 is designed to effectuate the law, to enforce the rule
of law and to ensure that the several authorities and organs of the State act in accordance with
law. It cannot be invoked for directing the authorities to act contrary to law, Union of India v
Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd2.
Respondent further submits that The provisions of Arts. 226, 227 of the Constitution of India
and sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is an extraordinary and inherent
powers of the court do not confer arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its
whims or caprice. However, the court, under its inherent powers, can neither intervene at an
uncalled for stage nor it can ‘spot-pedal the course of justice’ at a crucial stage of
investigation/proceedings is a device to advance justice and not to frustrate it. The power of
judicial reviews discretionary, however, it must be exercised to prevent the miscarriage of
justice and for correcting some grave errors and to ensure that esteem of administration of
justice remains clean and pure. However, there are no limits of power of the court, but the
more the power, the more due care and caution is to be exercised in invoking these powers.
(Vide State of West Bengal v Swapan Kumar Guha 3; Pepsi Foods Ltd. V Special Judicial
Magistrate4: 1997 AIR SCW 4084; G. Sagar Suri v State of U.P. 5: 2000 AIR SCW 296; and
Ajay Mitra v State of M.P.6: 2003 AIR SCW 592.)

1
2010 AIR SCW 6387
2
(1996)4 SCC 453.
3
AIR 1982 SC 949
4
AIR 1998 SC 128
5
AIR 2000 SC 754
6
AIR 2003 SC 1069
Furthermore, the respondent submits that Petition filed under Article 227, if can be called
‘writ petition’. No writ petition can be moved under Art. 227 nor can a writ be issued under
Art. 227. Therefore, a petition filed under Art. 227 cannot be called a writ petition.
This is clearly the constitutional position Shalini Shyam Shetty v Rajendra Shankar Patil
2010 AIR SCW 6387. Article 226/227 cannot be invoked for directing the authorities to act
contrary to law is not permissible for the High Court, even while acting under sec. 226 of the
Constitution, to direct the authorities under the Act to act contrary to the aforesaid statutory
provision, the power conferred by Article 226/227 is designed to effectuate the law, to
enforce the rule of law and to. ensure that the several authorities and organs of the State act in
accordance with law. It cannot be invoked for directing the authorities to act contrary to law
Union of India v Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd7.

The Supreme Court placed reliance on Nageridia Nath’s case in a subsequent judgment in
Nibaran Chandra Bag v Mahendra Nath Ghughu AlR 8 The court observed that jurisdiction
conferred under Article 227 is not by any means appellate in its nature for correcting errors in
the decisions of subordinate courts or tribunals but is merely a power of superintendence to
be used to keep them within the bounds of their authority.

A Three-Judge Bench of the court in Rena Drego (Mrs.) v Lalehand Soni 9 again abundantly
made it clear that the High Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the
subordinate court or the tribunal while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227. Its
function is limited to seeing that the subordinate court or the tribunal functions within the
limits of its authority cannot Correct mere errors of fact by examining the evidence and re-
appreciating it.

In Virendra Kashinath Ravat v Vinayak N. Joshi10 the court ‘held that the limited power
under Article 227 cannot be invoked except for ensuring that the subordinate court functions
within its limits State of Haryana v Manoj Kumar11.

Interference under Article 226/227 not permissible where remedy way of appeal available.
the right of appeal is a statutory right and where an ides remedy by filing an appeal on limited
7
(1996)4 SCC 453
8
1963 SC 1895
9
(1998)3 SCC 341
10
(1999)1 SCC 47
11
AIR 2010 SC 1779
grounds, the grounds heretic, not be enlarged by filing a petition under Article 226/227 of the
constitution Sadhna Lodh v National Insurance Co. Ltd12.the Constitution (3-Judge Bench).

Hence respondent states that the PIL under article 227 is not maintainable.

12
(2003)3 SCC