c.o.

4015 of 2007

Mr. Bhattacharya appearing for respondent has urged that every points of facts

where there is scope of revision or appeal the superintendent power of the High Court

cannot be exercised under Article 227 of the Constitution. Mr.Bhattacharya cited the

decision reported in 2003(3) SCC page 524 (Sadhana Lodh – vs. – national Insurance

Co. Ltd. And Anr.). In the cited decision it was a case under Section 173 of the Motor

Vehicles Act 1988. Needless to mention that interlocutory order passed by the Courts

subordinate to the High Court against which remedy of revision has been executed by

the amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure in1999. Obviously there is scope of

appeal in such case. In the present case under the West Bengal Co-operative Societies

Act 1973 there is no scope of appeal against the judgment of the Co-operative

Tribunal in paragraph 6 of the said decision the Supreme Court held “The right of

appeal is a statutory right and where the law provides remedy by filing an

appeal on limited grounds, the grounds of challenge cannot be enlarged by filing

a petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution on the premise that the

insurer has limited grounds available for challenging the award given by the

Tribunal.” In the said decision the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution by

the insurer was declared wholly misconceived as an illustration the Supreme Court

has further held “where a trial in a civil suit refused to grant temporary

injunction and an appeal against refusal to grant injunction it has been rejected,

and a state enactment has barred the remedy of filing revision under Section 116

CP Code. In such a situation a writ petition under Article 227 would lie.”
 Accordingly such decision does not come to much help of the respondent. Mr.

Bhattacharya has also cited decision reported in AIR 2003 Supreme Court 3044(Surya

Dev Rai – Vs. – Ram Chander Rai and others) and contended that in exercise of the

supervisory jurisdiction the High Court cannot correct the mere errors of fact or of

law. Under paragraph 38/4 it has been held by the Supreme Court “Supervisory

jurisdiction under Art. 227 of the Constitution is exercised for keeping the

subordinate Courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. When the

subordinate Court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has

failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have or the jurisdiction though

available is being exercised by the Court in a manner not permitted by law and

failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby, the High Court may

step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction.” In the self-same judgment under

paragraph 38/ 5 it has been held by the Supreme Court “ Be it a writ of certiorari or

the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors

of fact or of law unless the following requirements are satisfied : (i) the error is

manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on

clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and (ii) a grave

injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby.”

In paragraph 38/6 the Supreme Court as also held “A patent error as an

error which is a self evident, i.e. which can be perceived or demonstrated when

involving into any lengthy or complicated argument or a long drawn process of

reasoning.”
 Mr. Dey appearing for the petitioners contended that the scope of interference

under Article 227 of the Constitution is very wide. According to him broadly

speaking the petitioners under supervisory jurisdiction when contends in appropriate

cases and seeks for High Court interference there may not be any barred simply

because the points of facts are involved, rather the …..under article 227 of the

Constitution are very wide enabling the High Court to ensure that the Courts and

Tribunals inferior to it discharged their duties and obligation. Such contention is

supported by the ratio expressed in paragraph 25 of the decision of the Supreme Court

reported in 2007 (4) Supreme Court Cases, page – 94(………..)

Thus it is now well settled that the supervisory power under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India may be exercised by the High Court even on point of facts if it is

found that such finding of the subordinate Court or the Tribunal caused grave

injustice to the parties, provided there is no scope of any appeal therefrom. In the

instant case learned Tribunal has observed that the very dispute case filed by Manik

Lal Karmakar was barred by limitation has prescribed under Article 226/2 of the Act

of 1973. There is no provision for appeal against such finding of the learned

Tribunal. By the amended Civil Procedure Code the scope of interference under

Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been made limited. Now such a

finding of learned Tribunal which now appears to be wrong under law and facts

caused irreparable and grave injustice to the petitioner, snatching away his right to

agitate his grievance before the Tribunal or any legal authority. Such finding of

learned Tribunal is obviously a perverse one.

 Accordingly justice demands interference by the High Court over the matter

under Article 27 of the Constitution. Hence this revision is allowed.

The impugned judgment dated………of the tribunal is set aside and the award

of the Deputy Registrar under West Bengal Co-operative Societies dated…………..is

confirmed. The period of execution and registration of the deed of sale by the

respondent society is extended till 29.02.2008. The petitioners shall pay the balance

consideration money to the opposite party/ societies by 31st January, 2008.

Considering the circumstance there shall be no order as to cost.

Urgent Xerox copy …………………

Quills

Mixed media Painting