9. A bare look at Article 227 of the Constitution, it is clear that the powers of the High Court are limited and they are supervisory in nature. In one of the judgments of the Apex Court in Essen Deinki v. Rajiv Kumar, discussed about the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, held that the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited and restrictive in nature, revisional and not appellate and finding of fact cannot be gone into normally. Generally speaking, exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited and restrictive in nature and it is so exercised in the normal circumstances for want of jurisdiction, errors of law, perverse findings and gross violation of principles of natural justice, to name a few. It is merely a revisional jurisdiction and does not confer an unlimited authority or prerogative to correct all orders or even wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Courts below. The finding of fact being within the domain of the inferior Tribunal, except where it is a perverse recording thereof, or not based on any material whatsoever resulting in manifest injustice, interference under the Article is not called for. Therefore, the jurisdiction so conferred is by no means appellate in nature for correcting errors in the decision of the subordinate Courts or Tribunals but is merely a power of superintendene to be used to keep them within the bounds of their authority.
