Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

15. In State of U. P. v. Mohd. Nooh, AIR 1958 SC 86, the Supreme Court had stated, in paragraph 11, as follows (at page 94) :

"On the authorities referred to above it appears to us that there may conceivably be cases - and the instant case is in point - where the error irregularity or illegality touching jurisdiction or procedure committed by an inferior court or Tribunal of first instance is so patent and loudly obtrusive that it leaves on its decision an indelible stamp of infirmity or vice which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal or revision. If an inferior court or tribunal of first instance acts wholly without jurisdiction or patently in excess of jurisdiction or manifestly conducts the proceedings before it in a manner which is contrary to the rules of natural justice and all accepted rules of procedure and which offends the superior court's sense of fair play, the superior court may, we think, quite properly exercise its power to issue the prerogative writ of certiorari to correct the error of the court or tribunal of first instance, even if an appeal to another inferior court or tribunal was available and recourse was not had to it or if recourse was had to it, it confirmed what ex facie was a nullity for reasons aforementioned."

18. I had an occasion to consider a similar question in Assistant Director of Mines and Geology v. Taraka Rana Labour Contract Co-operative Society . After considering the various decisions and following the decisions of the Supreme Court rendered in State of U. P. v. Mohd. Nooh, AIR 1958 SC 86, and Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim, , I held that in cases where the Act is not applicable and the District Forum has no jurisdiction to pass the order the High Court can exercise its jurisdiction under article 227 of the Constitution and interfere.

23. If we consider the principle laid down by the two Division Benches referred to above, i.e., Deputy Commissioner of Endowments v. Sai Baba Samasthana, and Tulasi Enterprises v. A. P. State Consumer Commission, , normally the High Court will not interfere in the decision of the Tribunal merely because a question of jurisdiction is raised. But, in exceptional cases, where the court finds that the Forum has no jurisdiction at all on the ground that the Act is not applicable to the complaint or there are other situations compelling interference by the High Court, it can interfere notwithstanding the fact that the Act provides for appeal. This is also supported by the decision of the Supreme Court in State of U. P. v. Mohd. Nooh. AIR 1958 SC 86.