REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4350 OF 2009
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 22165 of 2008)
State of West Bengal & Ors. ..........Appellants
Versus
Samar Kumar Sarkar ........Respondent
JUDGMENT
H.L. Dattu,J.
Leave granted.
2) The petition raises an important question as to the power of the High
Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to transfer an
application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act
pending before the Administrative Tribunal to the High Court for its
consideration and decision.
3) The facts in nutshell are, the respondent before the West Bengal
Administrative Tribunal is the petitioner in this petition. The respondent
in the present petition filed O.A. No. 912 of 2003 under Section 19 of the
Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, before the West Bengal State
1
Administrative Tribunal, inter alia requesting the Tribunal to direct
respondents therein to appoint the applicant to the post of Group `D’ in
the office of District Land and Land Reforms Officer, Howrah, on the
ground that he had served as Tahsil Mohurrior under the Block Land and
Land Reforms Officer, Shyampur. After service of notice on the
respondents, several adjournments were granted by the Tribunal to the
parties to complete the pleadings. The application thereafter was posted
before the Tribunal on 1.2.2005. The Tribunal had granted permission to
the respondents therein to file its reply, if any, within three weeks.
Aggrieved by the order so passed, the applicant had moved a petition
before the High Court at Calcutta under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution, assailing the correctness or otherwise of the order dated
1.2.2005 and also praying for the very same reliefs that was sought in the
application. The Court by its order dated 7.3.2005 had rejected the writ
petition on the ground that the petition filed is premature.
4) The Tribunal could not hear the application for various reasons. Those
reasons are not relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal.
Therefore, we are not adverting to the orders passed by the Tribunal
on several dates of hearing.
5) The respondent herein who was applicant before the Tribunal has filed
one more writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution
2
in the High Court at Calcutta, wherein apart from others has requested
the court for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing
the respondents in the said application to give appointment to him
with effect from 6.3.2000 and to release arrears of salary and other
benefits. The writ petition No. 649 of 2007 was heard by the High
Court on 7.7.2008. The High Court by its order dated 7.7.2008,
directed the Registry of the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal to
transmit all the original records of O.A. No. 912 of 2003 to the High
Court for taking a decision in the matter. The findings and the
observations of the High Court in its order dated 7.7.2008 are as
under:
“In our view, with great respect, the learned Tribunal
having found no time on earlier occasions, should
have placed, at least on a particular date, this matter at
the top of the list so that the matter could have been
heard. In our order dated 16th August, 2007, it was
observed that in the event the learned Tribunal could
not hear out this matter, this Court will, in exercise of
its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India withdraw the same and hear out the matter, as
the learned Tribunal has failed to decide the matter.
Accordingly, we are of the view that the learned
Tribunal has failed to decide the matter. We are not
oblivious of the position of law that this Court cannot
try the above matter at the first instance in view of the
judgment of Supreme Court rendered in the case of L.
Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India – A.I.R. 1997 SC
1125. But this Court having superintending power
cannot remain passive institution when learned
Tribunal abdicates its legal, if not constitutional duty.
3
When a subordinate Court or Tribunal fails or
neglects absolutely to function, it can be concluded
without any hesitation that extra ordinary situation has
arisen that endanger due process of law. In such
situation to disclose constitutional obligation to the
citizens of India, this Court has power, in our opinion,
not only to withdraw the case of this nature, but to try
the same. The word “Superintendence” is of wide
connotation. It has inclusive meaning which inter alia
are to oversee, monitor so that things is done or act is
accomplished with logical conclusion and finally in
case of failure to take upon itself to do and
accomplish what ought to have been done by person
or forum subordinate to it.
Hence, we direct the Registry of the learned Tribunal
to transmit all the original records of O.A.No. 912 of
2003 (Samar Kr. Sarkar vs. State of W.B. and Ors.) to
this Court, for taking a decision in this matter.
The records shall be transmitted to this Court by
special messenger, cost of which shall be paid by the
applicant and this shall be brought to this Court within
fortnight from the date of service of copy of this
order.”
6) Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the respondents in the application
are before us in this civil appeal.
7) The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submitted that the
impugned order of the High Court in withdrawing the application
O.A.No. 912 of 2003 (Samar K.V. vs. State of West Bengal and
Others) pending before West Bengal Administrative Tribunal for its
consideration and decision is contrary to law and also decision of this
Court in the case of Thakur Jugal Kishore vs. Sitamarhi Central
Cooperative Bank Ltd., (1967) 3 SLR 163, wherein it is stated, that,
4
`needless to add that errors as to the interpretation of the Constitution
is not out of the purview of Article 227, although the High Court
could not, under the powers conferred by this Article, withdraw a case
to itself from a Tribunal and dispose of the same, or determine merely
the question of law as to the interpretation of Constitution arising
before the Tribunal. It is further submitted that the High Court has no
inherent power to transfer a case to itself outside the provisions
contained in Article 228 of the Constitution of India and since the
instant case is not covered by Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
the High Court committed a grave error in directing the transfer of the
case pending before the State Administrative Tribunal to itself’. It is
further submitted that the order and direction issued by the High Court
is contrary to the direction and observation made by this Court in the
case of L. Chandrakumar vs. Union of India and Others.
8) The learned Counsel for the contesting respondent submitted that the
petition that was filed before the High Court was both under Articles
226 and 227 of the Constitution and therefore, the High Court in
exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction was justified in directing the
Tribunal to transmit all the records pertaining to the case of the
respondent, since there was inordinate delay by the Tribunal in
5
deciding an application which did not involve either complicated
questions of fact or the law.
9) The relevant Articles of the Constitution of India may be extracted:
“Article 227 : Power of superintendence over all Courts
by the High Court:
(1) Every High Court shall have superintendence over
all Courts and Tribunals throughout the territories in
relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing
provisions, the High Court may –
(a) call for returns from such Courts;
(b) make and issue general rules and prescribe forms
for regulating the practice and proceedings of
such Courts; and
(c) prescribe forms in which books, entries and
accounts shall be kept by the officers of any such
Courts.
(3) The High Court may also settle tables of fees to be
allowed to the sheriff and all clerks and officers of
such Courts and to attorneys, advocates and pleaders
practicing therein:
PROVIDED that any rules made, forms
prescribed or tables settled under clause (2) or clause (3)
shall not be inconsistent with the provision of any law for
the time being in force, and shall require the previous
approval of the Governor.
(4) Nothing in this article shall be deemed to confer on a
High Court powers of superintendence over any
Court or Tribunal constituted by or under any law
relating to the Armed Forces.
Article 228: Transfer of certain cases to High Court:
If the High Court is satisfied that a case pending in a
Court subordinate to it involves a substantial question of
law as to the interpretation of the Constitution the
determination of which is necessary for the diposal of the
case, it shall withdraw the case and may –
a. either dispose of the case itself, or
6
b. determine the said question of law and return the
case to the Court from which the case has been so
withdrawn together with a copy of its judgment on
such question, and the said Court shall on receipt
thereof proceed to dispose of the case in
conformity with such judgment.”
10)Under Article 227, the High Court has been given power of
superintendence both in judicial as well as administrative matters over
all Courts and Tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which
it exercises jurisdiction. It is in order to indicate the plentitude of the
power conferred upon the High Court with respect to Courts and the
Tribunals of every kind that the Constitution conferred the power of
superintendence on the High Court. The power of superintendence
conferred upon the High Court is not as extensive as the power
conferred upon it by Article 226 of the Constitution. Thus, ordinarily
it will be open to the High Court, in exercise of the power of
superintendence only to consider whether there is an error of
jurisdiction in the decision of the Court or the Tribunal subject to its
superintendence.
11)In the case of Gujarat vs. Vakhatsinghji Vajesinghji Vaghela, AIR
1968 SC 1481, this Court held, that Article 227 of the Constitution of
India gives the High Court the power of superintendence over all
Courts and Tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it
7
exercises jurisdiction. It is held that this jurisdiction cannot be limited
or fettered by any act of the State Legislature. It is held that the
supervisory jurisdiction extends to keeping the subordinate Tribunals
within the limits of the authority and to seeking that they obey the
law.
12)In Bathutmal Raichand Oswal vs. Laxmibai R. Tarta, (1975) 1 SCC
858, this Court again reaffirmed that the power of superintendence of
the High Court under Article 227 being extraordinary was to be
exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases. High Court’s
function is limited to see that the subordinate court or Tribunal
functioned within the limits of its authority. The Court further said
that the jurisdiction under Article 227 could not be exercised `as the
cloak of an appeal in disguise’.
13)This Court in the case of State through Special Cell, New Delhi vs.
Navjot Sandhu, (2003) 6 SCC 641, held that Article 227 of the
Constitution of India gives the High Court the power of
superintendence over all Courts and Tribunals throughout the
territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction. The powers
under Article 227 are wide and can be used, to meet the ends of
justice. However, the power under Article 227 is a discretionary
power and it is difficult to attribute to an order of the High Court, such
8
a source of power, when the High Court itself does not in terms
purport to exercise any such discretionary power.
14)Article 228 of the Constitution covers a different field from that
covered by Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. It lays down the
procedure regarding transfer of a case pending in Courts subordinate
to the High Court. This power is not to be founded both under
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The conditions that require
to be fulfilled before Article 228 of the Constitution can be applied
are, that a case must be pending in the Court subordinate to the High
Court, the case must involve a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the Constitution or the Government of India Act,
1935 and the determination of the question of law must be necessary
for disposal of the case. Once these three conditions are fulfilled, the
Article requires that the High Court will withdraw the case and then
may either dispose of the case itself or determine the question of law
and return the case to the Court from which the case has been
withdrawn.
15)Reference may also made to the decision of this Court in the case of
Umaji Keshao Rao Mesharam vs. Radhikabai, 1986 Supp. SCC 401,
wherein, it was held that Article 228 confers upon the High Court the
power to transfer a case pending in a Court subordinate to it for
9
disposal by itself if “it involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the Constitution”.
16)In Rao Shiva Bahadur Singh vs. State of Vindya Pradesh, (1956) 2
SCR 206, it is stated by this Court that the High Court if satisfied that
a case pending in a Court subordinate to it involves a substantial
question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution, the
determination which is necessary for the disposal of the case, may
withdraw the case either to dispose of the case itself or determine the
said question of law and return the case to the Court from which it has
been so withdrawn so as to enable the said Court to proceed to dispose
of the case in conformity with the judgment of the High Court.
17)Therefore, the High Court in exercise of power under Article 228 of
the Constitution can withdraw a case from subordinate Court and
decide the whole case by itself or decide the question of law and
return the case to the Court from which it is withdrawn. But the
primary ingredient for exercise of the power under this Article is that
the case should contain a substantial question of law, which requires
an interpretation of the Constitution.
18)But, at this stage, we are not concerned in this appeal with Article 228
of the Constitution but only with Article 227 of the Constitution and
more specifically with the correctness of the order passed by the
10
Division Bench of the High Court, wherein the High Court has
withdrawn the application pending before the Administrative Tribunal
for its consideration and decision.
19)With regard to the power of the High Court in withdrawing a case
from the Tribunal for deciding it by itself by exercising its power
under Article 227, this Court in the case of Thakur Jugal Kishore
Sinha Vs. Sitamarhi Central Coop. Bank Ltd., (1967) 3 SCR 163, held
that Article 227 is of wider ambit; it does not limit the jurisdiction of
the High Court to the hierarchy of Courts functioning directly under it
under the Civil Procedure Code and Criminal Procedure Code but it
gives the High Court power to correct errors of various kinds of all
Courts and Tribunals in appropriate cases. Needless to add that errors
as to the interpretation of the Constitution is not out of the purview of
Article 227 although the High Court could not, under the powers
conferred by this Article, withdraw a case to itself from a Tribunal
and dispose of the same, or determine merely the question of law as to
the interpretation of the Constitution arising before the Tribunal.
20)It was held in the case of Nagendra Nath Bora vs. Commissioner of
Hills Division and Appeals, AIR 1958 SC 398, that under Article 226,
the power of interference may extend to quashing an impugned order
on the ground of a mistake apparent on the face of the record. But
11
under Article 227 of the Constitution, the power of interference is
limited to seeing that the Tribunal functions within the limits of its
authority.
21)In the light of the above discussions, in our view, it would have been
proper if the High Court in exercising its jurisdiction under Article
227 had directed the Tribunal to dispose of the matter expeditiously,
instead of transferring the matter to itself.
22)In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside.
The High Court is requested to return all the documents pertaining to
O.A.No. 912 of 2003 to the Administrative Tribunal forthwith. The
Tribunal is directed to consider the matter promptly and dispose of the
same within six months from the date of the pronouncement of this
judgment. No order as to costs.
…………………………………J.
[TARUN CHATTERJEE]
…………………………………J.
[ H.L. DATTU ]
New Delhi,
July 14, 2009.
12