Powers of High Court under Articles 226 and 227

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
[An Assignment Submitted to Himachal Pradesh National Law University,
Shimla ]

Course Incharge Submitted

By
Dr. Alok Kumar Shagun
Vishwanath
(1020202148)

HIMACHAL PRADESH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, SHIMLA

16 MILE, SHIMLA-MANDI NATIONAL HIGHWAY, GHANDAL
DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH-171014
Ph. 0177-2779802, 0177-2779803, Fax: 0177-2779802
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ASSIGNMENT

AN ASSIGNMENT
ON
Powers of High Court under Articles 226 and 227

2
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ASSIGNMENT

INDEX

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 4

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 5
ARTICLE 226 AND ITS SCOPE 6

WRITS AVAILABLE 7

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ARTICLE 12

32 AND 226
ARTICLE 227 13

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ARTICLE 14

226 and 227

3
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ASSIGNMENT

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my deepest appreciation to all those who provided me

the possibility to complete this project report. A special gratitude I give to Dr.
Alok Kumar, Administrative Law professor, HPNLU, whose contribution to
stimulating suggestions and encouragement, helped me to coordinate this
project and write this report.

I would also like to acknowledge with much appreciation the crucial role of the
library staff, who helped and gave permission to use all the required online
resources to complete this project.

Many people, especially my classmates have made valuable comments and

suggestions on my project which has helped me improve the quality of the
assignment.

4
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ASSIGNMENT

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

LEGISLATIONS REFERRED
● Constitution of India, 1950
● Special Marriage Act, 1954
● Uttar Pradesh Prevention from Unlawful Religion Ordinance, 2020
● Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
● Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019
● Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes Act, 2007
● Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014

CASES REFERRED
● Safiya Sultana vs. State Of U.P.
● M.P. Chothy v. State of Kerala
● Supreme Court Employees’ Welfare Association v. Union of India
● M.P. Chothy v. State of Kerala
● Supreme Court Employees’ Welfare Association v. Union of India
● Govinda Menon v. Union of India
● Pakkala Suribabu v. State of Andhra Pradesh
● Arunkumar and Sreeja vs. Inspector General of Registration and Ors
● NALSA v Union of India
● Justice K. Puttaswamy v Union of India
● Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India
● Umaji Keshao Meshram and Ors. vs. Smt. Radhikabai and Anr.
● Surya Devi rai vs. Ram Chander Rai
● Radhey Shyam & Anr vs Chhabi Nath & Ors

5
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ASSIGNMENT

ARTICLE 226 AND ITS SCOPE

Enshrined under Part V of the Constitution of India, Article 226 confers power
to the High Courts to issue orders, directions, and writs in the nature of
Habeas corpus, Mandamus, Certiorari, Prohibition, and Quo Warranto.
As per Article 226(1), every High Court within the territory of India has the
power to issue orders, directions, and writs to any individual or authority
including the Government for the enforcement of fundamental rights as well as
other legal rights under its own local jurisdiction.
“Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have powers,
throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue
to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government,
within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature
of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto, and certiorari, or
any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and
for any other purpose1”
Article 226(2) confers the power to the High Courts to issue orders, directions,
and writs outside their own local jurisdiction in the cases where the cause of
actions lies wholly or in part within their local jurisdiction.
“The power conferred by clause ( 1 ) to issue directions, orders or writs to any
Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court
exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of
action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding
that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person
is not within those territories2”
Article 226(3) states that when an interim order has been passed under Article
226 by way of injunction or stay against the respondent without:
i) providing the copy of the petition and evidential document to the respondent;
ii) giving an opportunity of being heard.
then, if the respondent moves to the High Court to cancel the interim order
and provides a copy of such petition to the petitioner, then, the High Court
shall decide the application within a period of two weeks of receiving such
application or within the period of two weeks from the date on which the other
party received such application, whichever is later.

1
CONST. Art. 226(1).
2
CONST. Art. 226(2).

6
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ASSIGNMENT

“Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction
or stay or in any other manner, is made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a
petition under clause ( 1 ), without
(a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in
support of the plea for such interim order; and
(b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an application to
the High Court for the vacation of such order and furnishes a copy of such
application to the party in whose favour such order has been made or the
counsel of such party, the High Court shall dispose of the application within a
period of two weeks from the date on which it is received or from the date on
which the copy of such application is so furnished, whichever is later, or where
the High Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the
next day afterward on which the High Court is open; and if the application is
not so disposed of, the interim order shall, on the expiry of that period, or, as
the case may be, the expiry of the aid next day, stand vacated3”
As per Article 226(4), the power conferred to the High Courts under Article
226 is not in derogation to the powers conferred to the Supreme Court under
Article 32(2)

WRITS AVAILABLE

Article 226 of the constitution empowers the high courts to issue, to any
person or authority, including the government, in appropriate cases,
directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus,
mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, certiorari or any of them.

HABEAS CORPUS:
LITERAL MEANING: You shall have the body
Habeas Corpus is a writ requiring a person under arrest of illegal detention to
be brought before a judge or into court, especially to secure the person's
release unless lawful grounds are shown for their detention.
In the case of Safiya Sultana vs. State Of U.P.4, the present Habeas Corpus
Petition was filed by Smt. Safia Sultana, who after converting to Hindu religion
and renamed as Smt. Simran, married Abhishek Kumar Pandey as per Hindu
rituals. However her father, is not permitting her to live with her husband. They
both are adults, duly married with their free will and desire to live together.
Thus the custody of the detenue by her father is illegal. The Court directed for

3
CONST. Art. 226(3).
4
Safiya Sultana vs. State Of U.P.,

7
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ASSIGNMENT

the presence of the detenue and her father. With regards to the special
marriage act that the procedure of publication of notice and inviting objection
to the intended marriage has to be such as to uphold the fundamental rights
and not violate the same. The court pointed out an invasion of fundamental
rights of liberty and privacy and court-mandated that it shall be optional for the
parties to the intended marriage to make a request in writing to the Marriage
Officer to publish or not to publish a notice and follow the procedure of
objections. This Judgement might have a significant impact on the Uttar
Pradesh Prevention from Unlawful Religion Ordinance, 2020 as it has also a
similar procedure5.
MANDAMUS:
LITERAL MEANING: To mandate
A writ issued as a command to an inferior court or ordering a person to
perform a public or statutory duty.
The Kerala High Court in the case M.P. Chothy v. State of Kerala6 the Petitioner
made a claim for reimbursement of travel allowances which he had to incur in
connection with the hearings before the State Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes
Commission at Thiruvananthapuram, instant writ petition for the issuance of
mandamus has been filed against the State Government, Kerala. Further, the
petitioner seeks to issue a similar relief against the Subordinate Courts so to
implement speedy trial provided under Section 14 of the Atrocities Act by taking up
the Atrocity cases and related matters immediately after the custody and bail cases.
Furthermore, the writ petition seeks to declare the Kerala State Commission for the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes Act, 2007 and the rules framed
thereunder as unconstitutional on the ground of inconsistency and repugnancy with
the Central Act.
Reference was made to Supreme Court Employees’ Welfare Association v.
Union of India7 that, “no writ of mandamus can be issued to the legislature to enact
a particular legislation nor can such direction be issued to the executive which
exercises the powers to make Rules in the nature of subordinate legislation.”
With respect to instances where the State Government is liable to reimburse the
expenses incurred by the complainant, the Court highlighted the following points;

● Every victim of atrocity or his/her dependent and witnesses shall be paid

expense from his place of residence to the place of investigation or trial of
offence under the Act.
● The District Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate shall make
necessary arrangements for providing transport facilities or reimbursement of

5
Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance, 2020, § 8 and 9, UP
Ordinance No. 21 of 2020.
6
M.P. Chothy v. State of Kerala, W.P(C) No. 34097/2015.
7
Supreme Court Employees’ Welfare Association v. Union of India, (1989) 4 SCC 187.

8
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ASSIGNMENT

full payment to the victims of atrocity and witnesses for visiting the
investigating officer, Superintendent of Police/Deputy Superintendent of
Police, District Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate.
● Every woman witness, the victim of atrocity or her dependent being a woman
or a minor, a person more than sixty years of age and a person having 40 %
or more disability shall be entitled to be accompanied by an attendant of
her/his choice. The attendant shall also be paid traveling and maintenance
expenses as applicable to the witness or the victim of atrocity when called
upon during hearing, investigation, and trial of an offense under the Act.
● The witness, the victim of atrocity or his/her dependent and the attendant shall
be paid daily maintenance for the days he/she is away from the place of
his/her residence or stay during the investigation, hearing, and trial of an
offense, at such rates but not less than the minimum wages, as may be fixed
by the State Government for the agricultural laborers.
● In addition to daily maintenance expenses, the witness, the victim of atrocity
(or his/her dependent), and the attendant shall also be paid diet expenses at
such rates, as may be fixed by the State Government from time to time.
● The payment of the traveling allowance, daily allowance, maintenance
expenses, and reimbursement of transport facilities shall be made
immediately or not later than three days by the District Magistrate or the Sub-
Divisional Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate to the victims, their
dependents/attendant, and witnesses for the days they visit the investigating
officer or in-charge police station or hospital authorities or Superintendent of
Police, Deputy Superintendent of Police or District Magistrate or any other
officer concerned or the Special Court.
● When an offense has been committed under Section 3 of the Act, the District
Magistrate or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate
shall reimburse the payment of medicines, special medical consultation, blood
transfusion, replacement of essential clothing, meals, and fruits provided to
the victim of the atrocity.
The court also upheld the validity of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
Act, 2007.
PROHIBITION:
LITERAL MEANING: To prohibit
A writ of prohibition is issued primarily to prevent an inferior court or tribunal
from exceeding its jurisdiction in cases pending before it or acting contrary to
the rules of natural justice.
In the case of Govinda Menon v. Union of India8, Govinda Menon was a
member of the Indian Administrative Service. The government had started
disciplinary proceedings against him. After a failed petition by Menon, the
government issued a show-cause notice to Menon after an enquiry was

8
S Govinda Menon v. Union of India, 1967 AIR 1274.

9
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ASSIGNMENT

conducted by a retired I.C.S. officer. Menon subsequently prayed for a writ of

prohibition to stop the government from proceeding on the show-cause notice.
In the case, the court affirmed the cases where a writ of prohibition can be
issued that is, the jurisdiction for grant of a writ of prohibition is primarily
supervisory and the object of that writ is to restrain courts or inferior tribunals
from exercising a jurisdiction which they do not possess at all or else to
prevent them from exceeding the limits of their jurisdiction. In other words, the
object is to confine courts or tribunals of inferior or limited jurisdiction within
their bounds. It is well-settled that the writ of prohibition lies not only for the
excess of jurisdiction or for the absence of jurisdiction but the writ also lies in a
case of departure from the rules of natural justice.
Thus, the court laid down the following circumstances for a writ of prohibition:
● Excess of jurisdiction
● Absence of jurisdiction
● Departure from the rules of natural justice

QUO WARRANTO:
LITERAL MEANING: By what warrant?
This writ is issued to enquire into the legality of the claim of a person or public
office. It restrains the person or authority to act in an office to which the person
is not entitled; and thus, stops usurpation of public office by anyone. This writ
is applicable to public offices only and not to private offices.
The High Court of Hyderabad in the case Pakkala Suribabu v. State of
Andhra Pradesh9, dismissed a writ petition seeking a writ of quo warranto
against the respondent to show the cause of his authority in holding the office
of the Chief Minister of the State of Andhra Pradesh.
The case of the petitioner is that proper statutory guidelines have not been
followed by the Governor when inviting the respondent to form a government,
therefore, the respondent has no rightful authority to hold the position. The
Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014 under Section 19(1) states that
allocation can be made for only the sitting members of the Legislative
Assembly of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner alleges that this requirement has
not been followed by the Governor.
The Court is of the view that the writ petition has been filed to abuse the
process of the Court as it has been filed 3 years and 2 months after the
appointment of the respondent. Further, a similar process was carried out in
the State of Telangana too by the Governor in accordance with Article 164(1)
of the Constitution. The petitioner has challenged only one appointment and
not both. The Court reasoned that there was no one who fits the criteria of
9
Pakkala Suribabu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2017 SCC OnLine Hyd 271.

10
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ASSIGNMENT

sitting member of Legislative Assembly on the given date due to the

Presidential Proclamation. Therefore, the decision taken by the Governor
cannot be termed illegal. On these grounds the writ petition was dismissed.

CERTIORARI:
LITERAL MEANING: to be certified
The writ of certiorari can be issued by the High Court for quashing the order
already passed by an inferior court, tribunal or quasi-judicial authority.
H.W.R. Wade & C.F. Forsyth defined certiorari as, "Certiorari is used to bring
up into the High Court the decision of some inferior tribunal or authority in
order that it may be investigated. If the decision does not pass the test, it is
quashed – that is to say, it is declared completely invalid, so that no one need
respect it. The underlying policy is that all inferior courts and authorities have
only limited jurisdiction or powers and must be kept within their legal bounds.
This is the concern of the Crown, for the sake of orderly administration of
justice, but it is a private complaint which sets the Crown in motion.10"
In the case of Arunkumar and Sreeja vs. Inspector General of
Registration and Ors.11, Arunkumar got married to Sreeja, a transwoman, on
31 October 2018 at a temple in Tuticorin, as per Hindu rites and customs.
When they submitted a memorandum for registration of marriage to the Joint
Registrar No. II of Tuticorin, the Registrar refused to register the same. The
petitioners challenged this decision before the District Registrar of Tuticorin
vide proceedings dated 16 November 2018, who in turn confirmed the Joint
Registrar’s decision on 28 December 2018. This decision was challenged
before the Madras High Court.
“Conditions for a Hindu marriage. A marriage may be solemnized between
any two Hindus, if the following conditions are fulfilled, namely:
(i) neither party has a spouse living at the time of the marriage;
2 [(ii) at the time of the marriage, neither party
(a) is incapable of giving a valid consent to it in consequence of unsoundness
of mind; or
(b) though capable of giving a valid consent, has been suffering from mental
disorder of such a kind or to such an extent as to be unfit for marriage and the
procreation of children; or
(c) has been subject to recurrent attacks of insanity 3 [***];]
(iii) the bridegroom has completed the age of 4 [twenty-one years] and the
bride, the age of 5 [eighteen years] at the time of the marriage;

10
Administrative Law, Eighth Edition, page 591.
11
Arunkumar and Sreeja vs. Inspector General of Registration and Ors., W.M.P. (MD) NO. 3220 OF
2019.

11
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ASSIGNMENT

(iv) the parties are not within the degrees of prohibited relationship unless the
custom or usage governing each of them permits of a marriage between the
two;
(v) the parties are not sapindas of each other, unless the custom or usage
governing each of them permits of a marriage between the two;”
The issue at hand was whether the term ‘bride’, as mentioned in Section 5 of
the Hindu Marriage Act meant only women, or included transgender persons
as well, given that Sreeja was a transwoman. The Court stated that a
marriage solemnized between a male and a transwoman, both professing
Hindu religion, was a valid marriage. The Court stated that transgender
persons had the right to decide their self-identified gender, as upheld by the
Supreme Court in NALSA v Union of India12, which has been reiterated in
Justice K. Puttaswamy v Union of India13 and again in Navtej Singh Johar
v Union of India14.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ARTICLE 32 AND 226

BASIS ART. 32 ART. 226

Type of Right Fundamental Right Constitutional Right

When can it be During emergency Cannot be suspended
suspended? even during emergency
Scope Comparitively Narrower Comparitively Wider
REASON: Applicable REASON: Applicable
only in case of violation not only in case of
of fundamental rights violation of fundamental
rights but also legal
rights.
Impact on jurisdiction Th3 Supreme Court has The High Court has a
a broader territorial narrower jurisdiction as
jurisdiction as this this article empowers
article empowers the the High Courts to issue
Supreme court to issue writs in its local

12
NALSA v Union of India, AIR 2014 SC 1863.
13
Justice K. Puttaswamy v Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
14
Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India, AIR 2018 SC 4321.

12
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ASSIGNMENT

writs all over the jurisdiction only.

Impact of Discretion
country.
As it is a fundamental
right, it cannot be
refused by the Supreme
Court.
As it is a constitutional
right, it is at the
discretion of the High
Court to issue the writ
or not.

ARTICLE 227

Article 227 of the Indian Constitution determines that every High Court shall
have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in
relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. The exception of that being any law
relating to the Armed Forces15.
“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 interrelation to which it exercises jurisdiction16”
Under this Article the court has the following powers:
● Call for returns from such courts17
● Make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the
practice and proceedings of such courts18
● Prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts be kept by the
officers of any such courts19
● Settle tables of fees to be allowed to the sheriff and all clerks and
officers of such courts20

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ARTICLE 226 and 227

The difference between Article 226 and 227 is discussed by the Supreme
Court of India in the case of Umaji Keshao Meshram and Ors. vs. Smt.
Radhikabai and Anr.21 In the case the court stated that the first and foremost
15
CONST. Art. 227(4).
16
CONST. Art. 227(1).
17
CONST. Art. 227(2).
18
Ibid.
19
Ibid.
20
CONST. Art. 227(3).
21
Umaji Keshao Meshram and Ors. vs. Smt. Radhikabai and Anr, 1986 AIR 1272.

13
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ASSIGNMENT

difference between the two articles is that Proceedings under Article 226 are
in exercise of the original jurisdiction of the High Court while proceedings
under Article 227 of the Constitution are not original but only supervisory.
Article 227 substantially reproduces the provisions of Section 107 of the
Government of India Act, 1915, excepting that the power of superintendence
has been extended by this Article to tribunals as well. Though the power is
akin to that of an ordinary court of appeal, yet the power under Article 227 is
intended to be used sparingly and only in appropriate cases for the purpose of
keeping the subordinate courts and tribunals within the bounds of their
authority and not for correcting mere errors.
● The court further observed that power under Article 227 shall be
exercised only in cases occasioning grave injustice or failure of justice
such as when:
● The court or tribunal has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have,
● The court or tribunal has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does
have, such failure occasioning a failure of justice, and
● The jurisdiction though available is being exercised in a manner which
tantamount to overstepping the limits of jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court in case of Surya Devi rai vs. Ram Chander Rai22,
further observed that there is lack of knowledge of the distinction between the
understanding of Article 226 and 227 and hence it is a common custom with
the lawyers labeling their petitions as one common under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution, though such practice has been deprecated in some judicial
pronouncements.

● Firstly, the writ of certiorari is an exercise of its original jurisdiction

under Article 226 by the High Court; exercise of supervisory jurisdiction
uder Article 227 is not an original jurisdiction and in this regard, it is
similar to appellate revisional or corrective jurisdiction.
● Secondly, in a writ of certiorari, the record of the proceedings having
been certified and sent up by the inferior court or tribunal to the High
Court, the High Court if inclined to exercise its jurisdiction, may simply
annul or quash the proceedings and then do no more under Article 226.
In exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, the High Court
may not only quash or set aside the impugned proceedings, judgment
or order but it may also make such directions as the facts and
circumstances of the case may warrant, may be by way of guiding the
inferior court or tribunal as to the manner in which it would now proceed
22
Surya Devi rai vs. Ram Chander Rai, 2003 6 SCC 675.

14
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ASSIGNMENT

further or afresh as commended to or guided by the High Court. In

appropriate cases the High Court, while exercising supervisory
jurisdiction, may substitute the impugned decision with a decision of its
own, as the inferior court or tribunal should have made.
● The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is capable of being
exercised on a prayer made by or on behalf of the party aggrieved but
the power conferred under Article 227 viz the supervisory jurisdiction is
capable of being exercised suo moto as well.

The court concluded that under Article 226 of the Constitution, writ is issued
for correcting gross errors of jurisdiction, i.e., when a subordinate court is
found to have acted:
● Without jurisdiction, by assuming jurisdiction where there exists none, or
● In excess of its jurisdiction – by overstepping or crossing the limits of
jurisdiction, or
● Acting in flagrant disregard of law or the rules of procedure or acting in
violation of principles of natural justice where there is no procedure
specified, and thereby occasioning failure of justice.

Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 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.
The Supreme Court, through this judgment, brought all the subordinate
Judicial bodies under the ambit of Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
curtailing the alternate remedy of Appeal available to the aggrieved, which
directly or indirectly made no difference in the powers of Article 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India.
This judgement was overruled by the supreme court in the case Radhey
Shyam & Anr vs Chhabi Nath & Ors23 by a Constitution Bench of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court comprising of H.L Dattu. CJI, Sikri.J, and A.K. Goel.
The Supreme Court upheld the difference laid down between Article 226 and
227 but at the same time it curtailed few powers in the hands of the Hon'ble
High Courts regarding exercising the powers under Article 226 by entertaining
the petitions not affecting the Fundamental rights of the individual. And hence,
overruled the judgment of Surya Devi Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai.
23
Radhey Shyam & Anr vs Chhabi Nath & Ors, CIVIL APPEAL NO.2548 OF 2009.

15
 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ASSIGNMENT

"This Court unfortunately discerns that of late there is a growing trend

amongst several High Courts to entertain writ petition in cases of pure
property disputes. Disputes relating to partition suits, matters relating to
execution of a decree, in cases of dispute between landlord and tenant and
also, in a case of money decree and in various other cases where disputed
questions of property are involved, writ courts are entertaining such disputes.
In some cases, the High Courts, in a routine manner, entertain petitions under
Article 227 over such disputes and such petitions are treated as writ petitions.
We would like to make it clear that in view of the law referred to above in
cases of property rights and in disputes between private individuals, writ court
should not interfere unless there is any infraction of statute or it can be shown
that a private individual is acting in collusion with a statutory authority.
We may also observe that in some High Courts there is a tendency of
entertaining petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution by terming them as
writ petitions. This is sought to be justified on an erroneous appreciation of the
ratio in Surya Dev and in view of the recent amendment to Section 115 of the
Civil Procedure Code by the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1999. It
is urged that as a result of the amendment, scope of Section 115 CPC has
been curtailed. In our view, even if the scope of Section 115 CPC is curtailed,
it has not resulted in expanding the High Court's power of superintendence. It
is too well known to be reiterated that in exercising its jurisdiction, High Court
must follow the regime of law.
Thus, we are of the view that judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to
a writ of certiorari under Article 226. We are also in agreement with the view of
the referring Bench that a writ of mandamus does not lie against a private
person not discharging any public duty. Scope of Article 227 is different from
Article 22624."

The jurisdiction of 226 and 227 is vast and has to be exercised sparingly. It
can be exercised to correct errors of jurisdiction, but not to upset pure findings
of the fact, which is within the domain of an appellate court only. This is where
the power of revision comes into picture. The purpose of revision is to enable
the revision court to satisfy itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of
any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed and as to the regularity of
any proceedings of the inferior criminal court. The jurisdiction of Article 226
cannot be used as a Revision or Appeal court as the rejection of the order by
the subordinate court does not arise the question of violation of fundamental
right when the alternate remedy of appeal is available to the aggrieved.

24
Ibid.

16