ANNAMALAI MUDALIAR Vs. STATE
LAWS(MAD)-1952-9-18
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on September 03,1952

ANNAMALAI MUDALIAR Appellant
VERSUS
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

RAMASWAMI, J. - (1.) THIS S. R. is sought to be filed as a Civil Revision Petition against the order dated 15 -10 -1951, in the nature of an award, passed by the Deputy Registrar of Co -operative Societies, Tiruvannamalai, in C. L. No. 920/50 -51.
(2.) THE High Court Office thereupon took two objections viz., that this Civil Revision petition has not been filed within 90 days of the date of the order and secondly, that it does not appear that a civil revision petition of this nature can be preferred on the foot of Article 227, Constitution of India. Taking the first point, there is a delay of 8 days and the learned advocate is directed to file a formal petition for excusing the delay and orders will be passed excusing the delay. This aspect of the case need not detain us further.
(3.) THE maintainability of this S. R. as a civil revision petition depends upon the decision whether it would be open to the High Court to revise, the order. Under Section 51(6)(a) of Madras Act 6 of 1932 any decision passed by the Registrar under Clause (a) of Sub -section (2) or under Sub -section (5) shall be final and shall not be called in question in any civil or revenue Court. Section 57 prescribes a revision to the local Government or to the Registrar from such a decision. In this particular case the petitioner has not pursued the remedy under Section 57 of the Act. Secondly, it is contended by the Government Pleader that Article 227, Constitution of India is not couched in such wide terms as Article 226 which enables the High Court to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases any Government, various writs for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III of the constitution of India or for any other purpose and that Article 227 has to be construed as one conferring on the High Court no special authority beyond general superintendence on subjects set out under the various sub -clauses therein. Thirdly, it was contended that the tribunals contemplated therein are those tribunals which though not described as courts strictly speaking, discnarge the same or analogous functions as are being discharged by Courts and that the Registrar is not one such tribunal synonymous with court. I shall now deal with these points one by one.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.