Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. Point 2: The restrictions sought to be imposed upon the scope of Article 227, Constitution of India as well as confining the superintendence to administrative superintendence have been the subject-matter of a catena of decisions showing that the position taken by the Government Pleader is untenable. In regard to the scope of Article 227 viz., whether it includes powers of judicial revision as contra-distinguished from administrative supervision alone, we must bear ill mind the following facts. Under Section 107, Government of India Act, 1915, 'Superintendence' was interpreted to include judicial as well as administrative superintendence, and the High Court was intervening by revision in proper cases, under Section 107, Government of India Act, 1919, in cases where Section 115, Civil P. C- or Section 430, Criminal P. C. did not apply; -- 'Sholapur Municipality v. Tuljaram', AIR 1931 Bom 582 and -- 'Emperor v. Jainnadas', AIR 1937 Bom. 153 and--'Balakrishna v. Emperor', 57 Bom. 93 (F.B.) -- 'Manmatha Nath v. Emperor', 37 Cal. W. N. 201. But Sub-section (2) of Section 221, Government of India Act, 1935, expressly barred this power of judicial interference and Beaumont C. J. in -- 'Balakrishna v. Emperor', observed that this taking away of the power of extraordinary revision from the High Court was an unfortunate thing. By reason of Sub-section (2) it was held under the Act of 1935 that Section 224 had no application to legal proceedings and did not confer any fresh revisional jurisdiction and that it only conferred powers of an administrative character; -- 'Sakkal Sardar v. Issurdas', I. L. R. (1941) 2 Cal 366; -- 'Jahnabi v. Basudeb', 54 Cal. W. N. 628. Therefore it was held in the following leading cases that the High Court could not interfere in revision exercising judicial functions such as the Madras Board of Revenue as in -- 'Ryots of Carabandho v. Zemindar of Parlakimedi', 70 Ind. App. 129 (P. C.), or the Deputy Collector making an order under the Rent Act as in -- 'Bhagwan Dayal v. Chandu Lal', ILR (1938) 1 Cal. 256 or the decision of the District Judge under Section 36, Legal Practitioners Act as in -- 'Re Adiraju Semanna', ILR (1938) Mad 988 or the decision under the Bengal Municipal Act as in -- 'Bonbehari v. Makhan Lal', ILR (1938) 2 Cal. 69. Other cases on which it was consistently held that the High Court could exercise its powers of revision only where no revision lay under Section 115, C. P. C. are: