Dismissed

Smt. Geeta Agrawal v. Additional District and Sessions Judge and 2 Others

Allahabad HC8 Jun 2021A227/1732/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 227 challenging an order in a civil appeal, the High Court held that no manifest error was apparent on the face of the record. Citing precedents on the limited scope of supervisory jurisdiction, the court found no justification for interference and dismissed the petition as it was sans merit.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was described as sans merit and was dismissed.

Smt. Geeta Agrawal Vs Additional District… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1732 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Geeta Agrawal Respondent :- Additional District And Sessions Judge And 2 Others

¶4

Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶6

Petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 24.2.2020 passed by the Additional District Judge/Special Judge, Mathura in Civil Appeal No. 38 of 2016(Ajay Kumar Vs. Smt. Geeta).

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any manifest error apparent on the face of record in the impugned order so as to justify interference by this Court in extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶8

The court below has recorded findings of fact and unless these findings are shown perverse or contrary to record resulting in grave injustice to petitioner, in writ jurisdiction under Article 227, this Court exercising restricted and narrow jurisdiction would not be justified in interfering with the same.

¶9

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.

¶10

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.

¶11

In D. N. Banerji Vs. P. R. Mukherjee 1953 SC 58 Hon'ble Supreme Court said:

¶12

"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."

¶13

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 :

¶14

"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".

¶15

The Constitution Bench of Apex Court in Nagendra Nath Bora and Another v. Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam & Others AIR 1958 SC 398 settled that power under Article 227 is limited to seeing that the courts below function within the limit of its authority or jurisdiction.

¶16

In view thereof, I find no justification warranting interference with the order impugned in this writ petition.

¶17

The writ petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed .

¶18

Order Date :- 8.6.2021 A.K.Srivastava

Smt. Geeta Agrawal v. Additional District and Sessions Judge and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Geeta Agrawal v. Additional District and Sessions Judge and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prem Chandra Vs State of U.P. and 15 Others

Hari Mohan Agarwal Vs Raju Prasad Verma

Ved Prakash Vs Dr. Govind Ji Shukla Additional Director Pension and Treasury Saharanpur and 2 Others

Sri Ram Vs Sri Gaurav Kumar, S.D.O.

Krishna Murti Pandey Vs Sanjiv Singh, D.M. Chandauli

Kamlesh Kumar and Another Vs Rajesh Kumar Mishra and 2 Others