Gujarat High Court
M/S Colors Trendz Private Limited vs Deputy Engineer (O And M) on 12 July, 2021
Author: Ashutosh J. Shastri
Bench: Ashutosh J. Shastri
C/SCA/14774/2020 ORDER DATED: 12/07/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14774 of 2020
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14775 of 2020
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14776 of 2020
==========================================================
M/S COLORS TRENDZ PRIVATE LIMITED
Versus
DEPUTY ENGINEER (O AND M)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS SONAL D VYAS(999) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS LILU K BHAYA(1705) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS(5) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI
Date : 12/07/2021
COMMON ORAL ORDER
1. These petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India are filed for the purpose of challenging the legality and validity of an order passed by Electrical Inspector dated 30.09.2020. Since common questions of law and facts have arisen in this group of petitions, learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties have requested to deal with and decide conjointly and as such, the petitions have been taken up for final disposal by treating Special Civil Application No. 14774 of 2020 as a lead matter and for the sake of convenience, the facts have been taken in detail from this lead matter.
2. The petitioner company has been incorporated for dealing in products of all kinds of fabrics and its processing and for the said business set up, plot No. 439 has been allotted by the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (GIDC) on the lease basis at Sachin Notified Industrial Estate. The said lease deed came to be registered and plot No. 439 was allotted to Shri Pravinbhai Page 1 of 17 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 23 00:15:11 IST 2021 C/SCA/14774/2020 ORDER DATED: 12/07/2021 Nathulal Patel which later on has been re-transferred to the petitioner company and accordingly, the lease deed has been entered into between the petitioner company and the GIDC.
2.1 It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has also purchased three textile units existing in plot No. 439 having consumer Nos. 12306/06679/5, 12306/06757/0 and 12306/06755/4 belonging to one Manubhai C Patel, Karshanbhai I Patel and Dashrathbhai L Patel respectively. It is the case of the petitioner that it has applied for clubbing all respective connections and supplying 300 KVA HT power to the proposed units situated at plot No. 439 and the said application was submitted on 18.07.2013. The respondent company, according to the petitioner, informed to pay the registration charges and bring certain approval from the Gujarat Pollution Control Board to install vacuum circuit broker by communication dated 19.07.2013. The petitioner company is the owner of all the three units and it had already started a process of clubbing all three connections and the change of names of three connections as well. In fact, according to the petitioner, at the time of checking also, the representative of the petitioner company was present and before the appellate authority also, a specific representation was made by the petitioner company and the objections were also lodged by the representative of the petitioner company. The appellate authority, after considering all the documents and taking note of Regulation 3.5 read with Regulation 4.1.17 of the Code, held that all the three connections were owned by the petitioner and there was no breach of the provisions of Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. In fact, respondent No.1 Electricity Company has failed in its statutory duty laid down in the Code and therefore, the provisional bill was quashed by an order dated 31.07.2015.
2.2 It is the case of the petitioner that aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order passed by respondent No.2 Page 2 of 17 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 23 00:15:11 IST 2021 C/SCA/14774/2020 ORDER DATED: 12/07/2021 Electrical Inspector, the respondent No.1 company challenged the same by way of Special Civil Application No. 8422 of 2016 before this Court. The respondent No.1 company challenged the order of appellate authority on the ground that it has committed an error in holding that there was no unauthorized use of electricity as per the provisions contained under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. According to the petitioner, a contention was raised that the appellate authority has misread the relevant provisions of the regulation and having considered the submissions from both the sides, the Hon'ble High Court disposed of the petition preferred by the respondent company observing that the appellate authority has not considered the exercise of power under Section 126 of the Act in its true perspective. The order dated 31.07.2015 in the respective petitions came to be set aside and consequently, the matter remanded back to the appellate authority to decide afresh.
2.3 It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the said remand order passed by the High Court, the petitioner in the remanded proceedings produced certain documents and written submissions before the authority and as pointed out specifically, the petitioner had already applied for clubbing all the three connections and supplied necessary documents related to it and as such, respondent No.1 company has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the Act, precisely the provisions of Regulation 3.5 read with Regulation 4.1.17 of the Supply Code. The said representation was submitted on 26.06.2020. However, it is the case of the petitioner that the Electrical Inspector has dismissed the remanded appeal i. e. Appeal No. 17 of 2019-2020 by way of order dated 30.09.2020 which order is made the subject matter of challenge in the present petitions.
Page 3 of 17 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 23 00:15:11 IST 2021C/SCA/14774/2020 ORDER DATED: 12/07/2021 2.4 With respect to other two petitions as mentioned above, almost similar challenge is made by the petitioner whereby the order of Electrical Inspector pursuant to the remand came to be challenged and the impugned order dated 30.09.2020 is requested to be quashed and set aside. These petitions have been entertained in the month of November, 2020 by issuance of notice and all the three petitions after passage of time have come up for consideration before this Court. Thereupon, learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective sides have been heard at length on 25.06.2021 and the matters have been placed for orders. Since similar contentions and the fact-situation have arisen in all the three petitions, the present common order is being passed by the Court by considering respective submissions.
3. Learned advocate Ms. Sonal D Vyas appearing on behalf of the petitioner company has submitted that the Electrical Inspector has committed a clear error in holding that Regulation 3.5 of the Supply Code does not apply to the facts of the present case. In fact, according to learned advocate for the petitioner, the Supply Code will have a direct effect on its applicability and the said process having been not observed, the order impugned without consideration of the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. Learned advocate Ms. Vyas has submitted that Regulation 3.5.1 is clearly providing that the distribution licensee company must dispose of all the applications for change of tariff/class by consumer within a maximum period of seven days after receipt of the applications regarding such change and that having been not entertained in the present case, the order in question deserves to be corrected. Learned advocate Ms. Vyas has further submitted that the documents produced by the petitioner indicated that in all the three different units having different connections, the petitioner is the very same owner and is running the company in all three units in a compact area of plot No. 439 and therefore, the Electrical Page 4 of 17 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 23 00:15:11 IST 2021 C/SCA/14774/2020 ORDER DATED: 12/07/2021 Inspector has committed a clear error in misconstruing the relevant provisions as indicated above. Learned advocate Ms. Vyas has contended that it is an error on part of the Electrical Inspector to hold that the petitioner had indulged in unauthorized use of electricity inasmuch as the distribution licensee company has failed in its statutory duty to comply with the relevant regulations as indicated above by providing separate connection in one premises. According to her, it was the statutory obligation of the Electricity Company to club all the three connections and convert the same from LT connection into HT connection as per communication dated 19.07.2013 and had there been such steps promptly been taken, there was no unauthorized use of electricity in any form. The procedural delay on the part of the officer of the respondent company cannot be attributed to the petitioner. Therefore, the order in question deserves to be quashed and set aside. The petitioner company has unnecessarily been saddled with the penal bill and then providing HT connection for the same speaks volume about. The provisions of Supply Code have been misread. Hence, such error which has been committed calls for interference by this Court in the interest of justice. Even otherwise, the order passed by the Electrical Inspector is not just and proper and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and as such, deserves to be quashed and set aside. No other submissions have been made.
4. To meet with the stand taken by the petitioner, learned advocate Ms. Lilu Bhaya appearing on behalf of the respondent company has submitted that she has filed a detailed affidavit-in- reply on behalf of the company and has clearly clarified the stand of the company. According to her, on the contrary, the petition lacks merits and deserves to be dismissed. The detailed narration of the submissions deserve consideration and as such, the Court deems it appropriate to reproduce the same hereunder :-
Page 5 of 17 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 23 00:15:11 IST 2021C/SCA/14774/2020 ORDER DATED: 12/07/2021 "6. I say and submit that The respondent no.3 is having an Industrial Connection with contract demand of 15 KW in Plot No. 439/7, G.I.D.C. Sachin, Surat. The connection was released on plot no.439/7.
The connection was checked by the Installation Checking Squad of the respondent no.1 on 29.8.2012. It was found that though the respondent no.3 was having connection in Plot No. 439/7 and from there the respondent no.3 was supplying electricity by illegally giving connection in plot no.439/9 where connected load of 10 KW was found. The said premises is already having electricity connection from the respondent no.1. Though the ownership of both the plots is of one, it amounts to unauthorised use of electricity under Sec. 126 of The Electricity Act, 2003. Sec. 126(6) of The Electricity Act, 2003 says that electricity can be used only in one premises where it is authorized by the respondent no.1. Both the premises are separate premises. Thus, the respondent no.3 had unauthorizedly extended the power boundary and it amounts to unauthorised use of electricity under Sec. 126 and therefore the respondent no.3 was issued provisional bill for Rs.2,51,438.11PS vide letter dated 29.10.2012. The respondent no.3 was called upon to make representation against the said bill within seven days from the receipt of of the said provisional bill. It is submitted that thereafter, the respondent no.3 made oral and written submissions and after hearing the respondent no.3, final bill came to be issued for Rs.2,51,438.11ps on 28.12.20212. It is submitted that the respondent no.3 thereafter preferred Appeal before the respondent no.2 under Sec. 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 before the respondent no.2 by depositing requisite amount. The respondent no.3 contended that the ownership of plot no.439 is of M/s. Colors Trendz Pvt. Ltd. and at the time of checking they were having different electric connections but at present we are having only one electric connection in the entire plot. The respondent no.3 also contended that it should have been given opportunity of reclassification of connection. Therefore it does not amount to unauthorised use of electricity. Respondent no.1 submits that without considering the facts and without considering documentary evidence and without considering the legal submissions which were made before the Electrical Inspector & Appellate Authority, Surat vide his judgment and order dated 31.7.2015 decided the said appeal and quashed an set aside the bill. The respondent no.2 set aside the bill only on the ground Page 6 of 17 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 23 00:15:11 IST 2021 C/SCA/14774/2020 ORDER DATED: 12/07/2021 that the respondent no.3 is the owner of all the plots and therefore this cannot be to be resale of electricity. The respondent no.2 held that the respondent no.1 should have followed the provisions of Clause No.3.5 of The Supply Code. Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the decision of the Electrical Inspector & Appellate Authority, Surat dated 31.7.2015, the respondent no.1 approached this Hon'ble Court by filing SCA No.8421/2016. Hon'ble Court (Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.D. Karia) vide judgment and order dated 11.12.2019 was pleased to allow the said petition and remand the matter to the Appellate Authority and Electrical Inspector. This Hon'ble Court after interpretation of Sec. 126 of the The Electricity Act, 2003 and looking to the definition of unauthorized use of electricity under Sec. 126 held in para-10 of the said order that the only point for consideration is whether the petitioners have legitimately exercised powers under Section 126 of the Act or not. Thereafter the Hon'ble Court held in para-11 of the said judgment as under :-
"11. On perusal of the aforesaid provision and in particular clause (b) to the explanation to Section 126 of the Act which defines the expression "unauthorized use of electricity" to mean the usage of electricity by any artificial means or by a means not authorized by the concerned person or authority or licensee or through a tempered meter or for the purpose other than for which the usage of electricity was authorized or for the premises or areas other than those for which the supply of electricity was authorized. In view of such definition of expression "unauthorized use of electricity", when the consumer uses electricity for the premises or areas other than those for which the supply of the electricity was authorized, would fall within the purview of section 126 of the Act pursuant to the inspection carried out by the petitioner."
Hon'ble Court had also gone through the provisions of Clause No. 3.5.1 of Supply Code and came to the conclusion in para-13 as under :-
Page 7 of 17 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 23 00:15:11 IST 2021C/SCA/14774/2020 ORDER DATED: 12/07/2021 "13. Thus on bare reading of the aforesaid Clause 3.5 of the Supply Code, it specifies that when it is found that a consumer has been classified in a particular category or the purpose of supply as mentioned in Distribution Service Agreement has changed or the consumption of power has exceeded in limit of that category or any order of reduction or enhancement of Contract Demand has been obtained, the Distribution Licensee may reclassify him under appropriate category and such clause does not refer to consumption of electricity for the premises or areas other than those for which the supply of electricity was authorized.
Therefore, clause 3.5 would not apply in facts of the present case. Similarly, the appellate authority has also not considered the fact that respondent no.3 purchased different sub plots from different persons and thereafter has made application for consolidation/clubbing of the three connections existing in three different sub- plots no.439. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is violation of Clause 4.1.17 of the Supply Code."
Therefore the Hon'ble Court allowed the petition and remanded the matter to the Appellate Authority and Electrical Inspector. Thereafter the Appellate Authority and Electrical Inspector, after hearing parties has considered the contentions raised by the respondent no.3 about Clause No.3.5 of Supply Code held that petitioner has not complied with the procedure of merging and therefore that connection cannot be looked into and came to the conclusion that at the relevant time connections were released considering the provisions of Clause No.4.1.17 of Supply Code and it was in accordance with law. The Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the bill which is issued for extension of power boundary is in accordance with Sec.126 and it is unauthorized use of electricity and Clause 3.5.1 of Supply Code will not be applicable in this case. Therefore the appellate authority dismissed the appeal.
Page 8 of 17 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 23 00:15:11 IST 2021C/SCA/14774/2020 ORDER DATED: 12/07/2021
7. I say and submit that all the contentions which are raised by the petitioner regarding Clause No. 3.5.1 and Clause No.4.1.17 of Supply Code were already raised before the appellate authority and the appellate authority has by reasoned order dismissed the appeal. I say and submit that the matter was remanded so that the petitioner can make submissions so far as Sec. 126 is concerned, however petitioner failed to lead any evidence to show that there is some mistake and therefore the appellate authority ultimately dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. I say and submit that in the earlier round of litigation also the same contentions were raised by the petitioner and the Hon'ble Court had rejected the same. Therefore, now it is not open for the petitioner to agitate the same contentions once again.
8. I say and submit that so far as merging is concerned the said issue has since been decided by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in LPA No. 1483/2013 in case of Aarvee Denims and Exports Ltd. Vs. UGVCL decided on 26.7.2019. Not only that the Division Bench has also decided the issue in case of Modern Denims Ltd. vs. UGVCL in SCA No. 12562/2012 and 15263/2012 which was upheld by the Division Bench in L.P.As also. However petitioner has intentionally chosen not to refer to the said order and not produced the said order. Petitioner has instead chosen to produce copy of order passed in SCA NO. 4032/2012 with SCA NO.16461/2010.
9. I say and submit that the grounds raised by the petitioner in the petition were raised in the earlier round of litigation also and the same have been adjudicated and held that this case is of unauthorized use of electricity."
4.1 By referring to these contentions, learned advocate Ms. Bhaya has requested the Court to dismiss the petition as there is no merit. In support of the said submissions, learned advocate Mr. Maulik Nanavati appearing on behalf of the respondent company in one of the petitions has also drawn the attention of this Court to the very same regulations and has submitted that there is absolutely no error committed by the Electrical Inspector in passing the order. According to him, on the contrary, in true Page 9 of 17 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 23 00:15:11 IST 2021 C/SCA/14774/2020 ORDER DATED: 12/07/2021 perspective, a fresh decision is taken after giving full opportunity to the petitioner and after considering the relevant provisions of the Supply Code. Learned advocate Mr. Nanavati has further submitted that the decision making process is in close conformity with the principles of natural justice and as such, in absence of mala fides or arbitrariness since a decision is taken in accordance with law after assigning proper reasons, it is not open for the petitioner to invoke an extraordinary jurisdiction to request the High Court to substitute the finding which has been arrived at in a just decision. Hence, the petition being devoid of merits, deserves to be dismissed.
5. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having gone through the rival stands taken by the petitioner as well as by the respondent company, following circumstances deserve consideration to arrive at a conclusion in the present proceedings :-
5.1 In earlier round of litigation, the Court while dealing with the almost similar kind of submission, had pointed out that when the consumer uses the electricity for the premises or other than those for which the supply of electricity was authorized, would fall within the purview of Section 126 of the Act. The Coordinate Bench of this Court while analyzing clause 3.5 of the Supply Code observed that clause 3.5 would not apply in the facts of the present case. The remand order which has been passed is only on account of the fact that the certain circumstances have not been considered and as such, the observations contained in paragraphs 11 and 13 are reproduced hereunder :-
"11. On perusal of the aforesaid provision and in particular clause (b) to the explanation to Section 126 of the Act which defines the expression "unauthorized use of electricity" to mean the usage of electricity by Page 10 of 17 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 23 00:15:11 IST 2021 C/SCA/14774/2020 ORDER DATED: 12/07/2021 any artificial means or by a means not authorized by the concerned person or authority or licensee or through a tempered meter or for the purpose other than for which the usage of electricity was authorized or for the premises or areas other than those for which the supply of electricity was authorized. In view of such definition of expression "unauthorized use of electricity", when the consumer uses electricity for the premises or areas other than those for which the supply of the electricity was authorized, would fall within the purview of section 126 of the Act pursuant to the inspection carried out by the petitioner."
"13. Thus on bare reading of the aforesaid Clause 3.5 of the Supply Code, it specifies that when it is found that a consumer has been classified in a particular category or the purpose of supply as mentioned in Distribution Service Agreement has changed or the consumption of power has exceeded in limit of that category or any order of reduction or enhancement of Contract Demand has been obtained, the Distribution Licensee may reclassify him under appropriate category and such clause does not refer to consumption of electricity for the premises or areas other than those for which the supply of electricity was authorized. Therefore, clause 3.5 would not apply in facts of the present case. Similarly, the appellate authority has also not considered the fact that respondent no.3 purchased different sub plots from different persons and thereafter has made application for consolidation/clubbing of the three connections existing in three different sub-plots no.439. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is violation of Clause 4.1.17 of the Supply Code."
5.2 The aforesaid observations passed by the Court are prima facie expressions of analysis of relevant provisions of the Supply Code and if the authority has reconsidered and arrived at a decision, it cannot be said that an error is committed. No doubt, a fresh decision was required to be taken keeping in view the submissions and contentions, but then, if these observations have been kept in mind by the authority while passing the order, the order does not suffer from vice of non-application of mind.
Page 11 of 17 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 23 00:15:11 IST 2021C/SCA/14774/2020 ORDER DATED: 12/07/2021 5.3 The issue related to merging of lines has been dealt with by the Division Bench of this Court in appeal proceedings and the same has not been referred to nor produced and instead of projecting a correct situation, the petitioners have chosen to produce an order passed in Special Civil Application No. 4032 of 2012 with Special Civil Application No. 16461 of 2010 and conveniently, kept silence over the Division Bench judgment dated 26.07.2019 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1483 of 2013 and as such, since all these issues have been on record of the case, the Court is not inclined to substitute the finding of the authority contained in the impugned order simply because it goes against the petitioner. A de novo and fresh decision would not mean that the authority is under an obligation to take a different view altogether. After considering the stand taken by the petitioners, if the observations and law permit to take a particular view, it is always open so long as it is in accordance with law and as such, there is no merit in the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioners. Undisputably, it appears that the petitioners have not complied with the procedure of merging in view of clause 3.5 of the Supply Code. The resultant consequence will have to be followed.
5.4 Additionally, it appears that a specific contention is raised in reply affidavit filed in one of the cases about this conduct on the part of the petitioners of not disclosing the correct position and the same has not been countered rather accepted by not filing rejoinder affidavit or disputing the same. The relevant paragraph contained in the said affidavit reads as under :-
"8. I say and submit that so far as merging is concerned the said issue has since been decided by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in LPA No. 1483/2013 in case of Aarvee Denims and Exports Ltd. Vs. UGVCL decided on 26.7.2019. Not only that the Division Bench has also decided the issue in case of Modern Denims Ltd. vs. UGVCL in SCA No. 12562/2012 Page 12 of 17 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 23 00:15:11 IST 2021 C/SCA/14774/2020 ORDER DATED: 12/07/2021 and 15263/2012 which was upheld by the Division Bench in L.P.As also. However petitioner has intentionally chosen not to refer to the said order and not produced the said order. Petitioner has instead chosen to produce copy of order passed in SCA NO. 4032/2012 with SCA NO.16461/2010."
This being a situation, the Court is not inclined to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction.
5.5 The issue of exercise of an extraordinary jurisdiction is amply made clear by catena of decisions which this Court may not like to discuss at length, but few observations contained in the relevant decisions on such exercise of power, this Court deems it proper to reproduce hereunder:-
(I) Sameer Suresh Gupta vs. Rahul Kumar Agarwal [(2013) 9 SCC 374]
"6. In our view, the impugned order is liable to be set aside because while deciding the writ petition filed by the respondent the learned Single Judge ignored the limitations of the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. The parameters for exercise of power by the High Court under that Article were considered by the two-Judge Bench of this Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and Others, IV (2003) SLT 810=III (2003) CLT 133 (SC)=(2003) 6 SCC 675. After considering various facets of the issue, the two-Judge Bench culled out the following principles:
(1) Amendment by Act No. 46 of 1999 with effect from 1.7.2002 in Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure cannot and does not affect in any manner the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
(2) Interlocutory orders, passed by the Courts subordinate to the High Court, against which remedy of revision has been excluded by the CPC Amendment Act No. 46 of 1999 are nevertheless open to challenge in, and continue to be subject Page 13 of 17 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 23 00:15:11 IST 2021 C/SCA/14774/2020 ORDER DATED: 12/07/2021 to, certiorari and supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court.
(3) Certiorari, under Article 226 of the Constitution, is issued for correcting gross errors of jurisdiction, i.e. when a subordinate Court is found to have acted, (i) without jurisdiction - by assuming jurisdiction where there exists none, or
(ii) in excess of its jurisdiction - by overstepping or crossing the limits of jurisdiction, or (iii) 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.
(4) 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.
(5) Be it a writ of certiorari or the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or of law unless the following requirements are satisfied : (i) the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and (ii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby.
(6) A patent error is an error which is self-
evident, i.e. which can be perceived or demonstrated without involving into any lengthy or complicated argument or a long-drawn process of reasoning. Where two inferences are reasonably possible and the subordinate Court has chosen to take one view, the error cannot be called gross or patent.
(7) The power to issue a writ of certiorari and the supervisory jurisdiction are to be exercised Page 14 of 17 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 23 00:15:11 IST 2021 C/SCA/14774/2020 ORDER DATED: 12/07/2021 sparingly and only in appropriate cases where the judicial conscience of the High Court dictates it to act lest a gross failure of justice or grave injustice should occasion. Care, caution and circumspection need to be exercised, when any of the abovesaid two jurisdictions is sought to be invoked during the pendency of any suit or proceedings in a subordinate Court and the error though calling for correction is yet capable of being corrected at the conclusion of the proceedings in an appeal or revision preferred there against and entertaining a petition invoking certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction of High Court would obstruct the smooth flow and/or early disposal of the suit or proceedings. The High Court may feel inclined to intervene where the error is such, as, if not corrected at that very moment, may become incapable of correction at a later stage and refusal to intervene would result in travesty of justice or where such refusal itself would result in prolonging of the lis.
(8) The High Court in exercise of certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction will not covert itself into a Court of Appeal and indulge in re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence or correct errors in drawing inferences or correct errors of mere formal or technical character.
(9) In practice, the parameters for exercising jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari and those calling for exercise of supervisory jurisdiction are almost similar and the width of jurisdiction exercised by the High Courts in India unlike English Courts has almost obliterated the distinction between the two jurisdictions. While exercising jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari the High Court may annul or set aside the act, order or proceedings of the subordinate Courts but cannot substitute its own decision in place thereof. In exercise of supervisory jurisdiction the High Court may not only give suitable directions so as to guide the subordinate Court as to the manner in which it would act or proceed thereafter or afresh, the High Court may in appropriate cases itself make an order in supersession or substitution of the order of the subordinate Court as the Court should have made in the facts and circumstances of the case.' Page 15 of 17 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 23 00:15:11 IST 2021 C/SCA/14774/2020 ORDER DATED: 12/07/2021 (II) Mohd. Yunus vs. Mohd. Mustaqim and ors.
[AIR 1984 SC 38] "7. The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts udder Art. 227 of the Constitution is limited "to seeing that an inferior Court or Tribunal functions within the limits of its authority", and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less an error of law. In this case there was, in our opinion, no error of law much less an error apparent on the face of the record. There was no failure on the part of the learned Subordinate Judge to exercise jurisdiction nor did he act in disregard of principles of natural justice. Nor was the procedure adopted by him not in consonance with the procedure established by law. In exercising the supervisory power under Art.227, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or Tribunal. It will not review or re-weigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior court or tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of law in the decision."
6. In view of aforesaid situation, particularly when all these issues were dealt with by the appellate authority looking to the scope contained as stated above, this Court is not inclined to exercise the jurisdiction to substitute the views as the same are not perverse to the record and the Court found that there is no material irregularity of any nature in arriving at a decision. That being so, when the earlier observations made by the Court have attained the finality and apparently, the reading of provisions of Supply Code is not misread by the authority, this Court is of the view that the petition lacks merits. The issue regarding legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel aspects in the aforesaid background of facts and circumstances is not possible to be accepted by this Court. Hence, the order under challenge does not call for any interference.
Page 16 of 17 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 23 00:15:11 IST 2021C/SCA/14774/2020 ORDER DATED: 12/07/2021
7. Similar is the case with respect to other two petitions tagged along with this. A challenge in the said petitions also fails in view of discussion made herein before. Hence, all the petitions stand dismissed with no order as to the costs. Notice is discharged.
(ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J) cmk Page 17 of 17 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 23 00:15:11 IST 2021