Dismissed

P. Sivaprakash v. the Regional Transport Authority

Kerala HC19 Oct 2022OP (FC)/405/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition under Article 227 challenging a Family Court order that lifted an injunction on a bus. The Family Court found the vehicle was sold before the suit was filed. The High Court held there was no manifest error or perversity in the lower court's finding.

What did the court decide?

The original petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court is dismissed.

P. Sivaprakash Vs the Regional Transport Authority — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

O.P.(FC)No.405 of 2022

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶6

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR

¶8

WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 27TH ASWINA, 1944

¶9

AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.3 OF 2021 IN O.P.NO.147 OF
2021 OF THE FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD

¶10

PETITIONER:

¶11

P. SIVAPRAKASH, AGED 47 YEARS
S/O. LATE SIVARAMA PILLAI
PULINICKALPARAMBIL HOUSE (KARTHIKA VILAS)
MANDIRAM P.O., RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,
PIN - 689672

¶12

BY ADV M.V.S.NAMPOOTHIRY

¶13

RESPONDENTS:

¶14

1THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
PATHANAMTHITTA- REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
RTA OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA,, PIN - 689645

¶15

2BIJI B.V.
PULINICKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, (KARTHIKA VILAS)
MANDIRAM P.O., RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,
PIN. 689672,

¶16

NOW RESIDING AT USHUS, MARUTHOOR, VATTAPPARA
P.O., VATTAPPARA VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD TALUK,

¶17

PIN - 695028

¶18

3JACOB SAMUEL, MALLAPPALLY VEEDU,
NELLIKKANAM, ANGADI P.O.,
RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689674

¶19

SMT DEVISHRI R- GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶20

THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶21

O.P.(FC)No.405 of 2022

¶22

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Anil K. Narendran, J.

¶25

The petitioner, who is the 1^st respondent in O.P.No.147 of 2021 on the file of the Family Court, Nedumangad, has filed this original petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order to quash Ext.P3 order dated 08.04.2022 of the Family Court, Nedumangad in I.A.No.3 of 2021 in that original petition, which was a claim petition filed by the 3^rd respondent herein, for lifting the order of attachment in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in respect of a vehicle bearing registration No.KL-03/V-8087 (previous No.KL-05/U7651).

¶26

After considering the rival contentions, the Family Court allowed I.A.No.3 of 2021, by Ext.P3 order dated 08.04.2022. Paragraphs 9 and 10 of that order read thus;

¶27

“9. Now the learned counsel for the 1^st counter petitioner would submit that Ext.A1 document is false and fabricated and by which no consideration has been passed. Further, it is a collusive agreement executed by the counter petitioners 1 and 2 and as such it is to be rejected. Now it is necessary to see the case of the claim petitioner that he has purchased the vehicle and permit for a total consideration of Rs.14,00,000/- and the entire sale

¶28

O.P.(FC)No.405 of 2022

¶29

¶30

consideration has been passed over to the 2^nd counter petitioner and that is evident from Ext.A1 agreement. Further to corroborate Ext.A1 agreement all the documents relating to the vehicle has been transferred and for showing the genuineness the claim petitioner produced copy of RC book as Ext.A2, copy of fitness certificate as Ext.A3, copy of policy certificate as Ext.A4, copy of stage carriage permit as Ext.A5, copy of letter issued by Sakthi Finance showing hypothecation of vehicle, copy of cash receipt issued from Motor Vehicle Department as Ext.A7, copy of pollution certificate as Ext.A8 and copy of authorisation letter issued by the claim petitioner as Ext.A9. Now the learned counsel for the claim petitioner would submit the original of these documents are in the vehicle and it is necessary for the daily use and as such he produced the copy of said documents. Now the 1^st counter petitioner has no case that the original documents were not handed over to the claim petitioner as alleged. The only contention is that Ext.A1 is false and fabricated and it is the result of collusion between the counter petitioners 1 and 2. In that aspect I have perused Ext.A1 agreement and documents produced by the claim petitioner. As per Ext.A1 document the schedule vehicle has been sold to the claim petitioner by the 2^nd counter petitioner. Now the entire documents with respect to the schedule vehicle have been handed over to the claim petitioner and he is in the possession of the vehicle and its documents. Now, the 2^nd counter petitioner who is the 1^st respondent in the original petition

¶31

O.P.(FC)No.405 of 2022

¶32

¶33

did not dispute Ext.A1 agreement and the case of the claim petitioner. On the other hand, she is admitting the case of the claim petitioner and also Ext.A1 agreement. Then the 2^nd counter petitioner would admit and support the case of the claim petitioner that the vehicle has been sold to the claimant. There is no reason to disbelieve the case of the claim petitioner. Here it is necessary to see the pleading in the original petition and in para No.17 of the original petition it is averred that the 1^st respondent has sold the A schedule vehicle to the 5^th respondent for Rs.14,00,000/-. As per the pleading in the original petition the 1^st counter petitioner herein was aware of the sale of A schedule vehicle but only mistake is that as per the pleading the vehicle was sold to the 5^th respondent. But in fact the vehicle was sold to the claim petitioner as per Ext.A1 agreement.

¶34

Now, as per the documents and pleadings of the parties it is evident that A schedule vehicle has been sold even before the institution of this case and as such the 1^st counter petitioner has no authority to get an injunction with respect to A schedule vehicle. So it is only just and proper to vacate the injunction order over the a schedule bus and for which the claim petition is to be allowed. The point is found in favour of the claim petitioner.”

¶35

(underline supplied)

¶36

On 12.07.2022, when this original petition came up

¶37

for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file and issued notice to respondents 2 and 3. The learned Government Pleader

¶38

O.P.(FC)No.405 of 2022

¶39

¶40

took notice for the 1^st respondent. This Court granted an interim direction restraining the 3^rd respondent from transferring and alienating the stage carriage vehicle bearing No.KL-03/V-8087 (previous No.KL-05/U-7651) without orders from this Court.

¶41

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶42

A reading of Ext.P3 order would show that the vehicle

¶43

in question, which was included in A Schedule, was sold even prior to the institution of O.P.No.147 of 2021 and it was in such circumstances that the Family Court, in the said order, found that the petitioner herein has no authority to get order of injunction with respect to that vehicle. Therefore, the Family Court vacated the injunction order over the A Schedule vehicle. The petitioner has absolutely no case that the reasoning of the Family Court in Ext.P3 order, while vacating the order of injection, is either perverse or patently illegal.

¶44

Article 227 of the Constitution of India deals with

¶45

power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court. Under clause (1) of Article 227 of the Constitution, every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises

¶46

O.P.(FC)No.405 of 2022

¶47

¶48

jurisdiction. Clause (2) of Article 227 provides that, without prejudice to the generality of the provisions under clause (1), the High Court may call for returns from such courts; make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of such courts; and prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts shall be kept by the officers of any such courts. Going by clause (4), nothing in Article 227 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.

¶49

7. In Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar

¶50

Patil [(2010) 8 SCC 329] the Apex Court, while analysing the scope and ambit of the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, held that the object of superintendence, both administrative and judicial, is to maintain efficiency, smooth and orderly functioning of the entire machinery of justice in such

¶51

a way as it does not bring it into any disrepute. The power of interference under Article 227 is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to

¶52

O.P.(FC)No.405 of 2022

¶53

¶54

maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and courts subordinate to the High Court.

¶55

In Jai Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

¶56

[(2010) 9 SCC 385] , while considering the nature and scope of the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Apex Court held that, undoubtedly the High Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution, has the jurisdiction to ensure that all subordinate courts, as well as statutory or quasi-judicial tribunals exercise the powers vested in them, within the bounds of their authority. The High Court has the power and the jurisdiction to ensure that they act in accordance with the well established principles of law. The exercise of jurisdiction must be within the well recognised constraints. It cannot be exercised like a 'bull in a china shop', to correct all errors of the judgment of a court or tribunal, acting within the limits of its jurisdiction. This correctional jurisdiction can be exercised in cases where orders have been passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice.

¶57

In K.V.S. Ram v. Bangalore Metropolitan

¶58

Transport Corporation [(2015) 12 SCC 39] the Apex Court

¶59

O.P.(FC)No.405 of 2022

¶60

¶61

held that, in exercise of the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court can interfere with the order of the court or tribunal only when there has been a patent perversity in the orders of the tribunal and courts subordinate to it or where there has been gross and

¶62

manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice

¶63

have been flouted.

¶64

In Sobhana Nair K.N. v. Shaji S.G. Nair [2016 (1) KHC 1] a Division Bench of this Court held that, the law is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court that in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the lower court or tribunal and the jurisdiction of this Court is only supervisory in nature and not that of an appellate court. Therefore, no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is called for, unless this Court finds that the lower court or tribunal

¶65

has committed manifest error, or the reasoning is palpably perverse or patently unreasonable, or the decision of the lower court or tribunal is in direct conflict with settled principles of law.

¶66

In view of the law laid down in the decisions referred

¶67

O.P.(FC)No.405 of 2022

¶68

¶69

to supra, the High Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by a lower court or tribunal. The supervisory jurisdiction cannot be exercised to correct all errors of the order or judgment of a lower court or tribunal, acting within

¶70

the limits of its jurisdiction. The correctional jurisdiction under Article 227 can be exercised only in a case where the order or judgment of a lower court or tribunal has been passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice. Therefore, no interference under Article 227 is called for, unless the High Court finds that the lower court or tribunal has committed manifest error, or the reasoning is palpably perverse or patently unreasonable, or the decision of the lower court or tribunal is in direct conflict with settled principles of law or where there has been gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted.

¶71

Viewed in the light of the law laid down in the decisions

¶72

referred to supra, conclusion is irresistible that no interference is warranted on Ext.P4 order, since the order of attachment is lifted

¶73

O.P.(FC)No.405 of 2022

¶74

¶75

by the Family Court on a specific finding that the A Schedule vehicle is sold even prior to the institution of O.P.No.147 of 2021.

¶76

In the result, this original petition fails and the same is

¶77

accordingly dismissed.

¶78

Sd/- ANIL K.NARENDRAN JUDGE

¶79

Sd/- P.G. AJITHKUMAR JUDGE

¶80

¶81

O.P.(FC)No.405 of 2022

¶82

¶83

APPENDIX

¶84

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶85

Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN O.P. NO.
147/2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE
THE FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD

¶86

Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.4.2021
OF THE FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD IN O.P.
NO. 147/2021
Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8/04/2022
IN I.A. NO. 3/2021 IN O.P. NO.147/2021
OF THE FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD
Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 28.5.2022

P. Sivaprakash v. the Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Sivaprakash v. the Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sivadasan Vs Latha

P Narayanan Vs State of Kerala

Anil Kumar R., Vs the Travancore Devaswom Board

Jayasree Padman Vs the State of Kerala

Ashitha K.S. Vs Shefin Sherif

Binu P Thomas Vs the State of Kerala