Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

24. In the decision Baby vs. Travancore Devaswom Board and others, reported in 1998 (8) SCC 310, it has been held that the power of High Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India is always in addition to the revisional jurisdiction conferred on it.

25. The Constitutional Bench in L.Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India and others, reported in 1997 (3) SCC 261, dealt with the nature of power of judicial review conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution and the power of superintendence conferred by Article 227. It was held that the jurisdiction conferred on the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution and on the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is part of the basic structure of the Constitution, forming its integral and essential feature, which cannot be tampered with, much less taken away even by Constitutional amendment. The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court has categorically ruled the importance of Article 227 by highlighting the same as a basic structure of the Constitution. However, it cannot be invoked merely to correct any error of fact as an appellate court and when alternative remedy is available, the Constitutional remedy under Article 227 cannot be invoked.

41. It has been categorically ruled by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the power under Articles 226 and 227 is a basic structure of the Constitution, which cannot be curtailed, even by way of any Constitutional amendment, as that of Article 32 of the Constitution available to the Apex Court, however, it can be sparingly used, when there is no alternative remedy available, in order to prevent miscarriage of justice.

42. So far as C.R.P (PD) No.2527 of 2008 is concerned, as contended by Mr.T.V.Ramanujam, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent / plaintiff, I am of the view that Order VII Rule 10 CPC is not applicable, since that is available only to the plaintiffs and the Court. Order VII Rule 10 CPC reads as follows :