Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.53 seconds)The Punjab Tenancy Rules
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 115 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953
Article 107 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Nagendra Nath Bora & Another vs The Commissioner Of Hills Divisionand ... on 7 February, 1958
Under the latter Article the power of interference may extend to quashing an impugned order on the ground of a mistake apparent on the face of the record, but under Article 227 the power of interference is limited to seeing that the tribunal functions within the limits of its authority: see Nagendra Nath v. Commissioner of Hills Division, AIR 1958 SC 398.And then powers under Article 227 have always to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases, and this power is clearly not meant for correcting mere errors of face or even of law. In the case in hand it has not been shown that the officers in hand it has not been shown that the officers concerned have in any way travelled beyond the scope of their jurisdiction or have erroneously refused to perform their duty imposed upon them by law. Assuming, without holding, that their orders are erroneous, that would not by itself warrant correction of the error under Article 227 of the Constitution. I am, however, not even convinced that the impugned orders are clearly and manifestly erroneous, though I am basing my decision mainly on the ground that there is no occasion for interference under Article 227.
Section 10 in The Punjab Tenancy Rules [Entire Act]
Delite Cinema And Ors. vs Rameshwar Dyal And Anr. on 27 October, 1958
(5) On behalf of the respondents two preliminary objections have been raised. In the first instance it is contended that the officers whose orders are being challenged, namely, the Financial Commissioner, the Commissioner, the Collector and the Assistant Collector are necessary parties to the present proceedings but they have not been impleaded. This, according to the respondents, is a fatal defect entailing rejection of the petition without going into the merits. This objection is based on the contention that Article 227 of the Constitution also confers a writ jurisdiction like Article 226, and, therefore, the authorities to whom a writ is to go from this Court must be impleaded as respondents. Reliance in support of this contention is placed on Phalgu Datt v. Smt. Pushpa Wanti, 1960-62 Pun LR 302: (AIR 1960 Punj 432): Hoshiarpur Azad Transporters (Private) Ltd. v. State of Punjab, 1960-62 Pun LR 409: (AIR 1961 Punj 374); and Delite Cinema v. Rameshwar Dial, AIR 1959 Punj 189. Out of these three decisions, the first one is the only relevant authority, the other two being cases of Article 226 of the Constitution and therefore clearly distinguishable. Secondly, it is contended that the copies, and on this ground also the petition deserves to be rejected. In this connection it is argued that a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution closely resembles a petition for revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and therefore the copies to be filed with the petition must be properly certified according to law.