- (1.) This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This application has arisen out of an order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (D.R.T.) followed by an appellate order passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (D.R.A.T.). Although the parties argued at length in the merit but at the end of the argument Mr. Ajoy Krishna Chatterjee. Learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the respondent Bank, raised a point about the scope' and ambit of the Article 227 of the Constitution of India in this respect. Possibly he wanted to see no stone unturned. Even then I am not inclined to give incidental value to such part of the argument because it may ultimately touch the foundation of the jurisdiction of the Court. Articles 226 and 227 are plenary powers of the High Court under the Constitution of India. Such plenary power of the High Court is exhaustive in nature. The same cannot be curtailed. Even then the Writ Court in its wisdom tries to avoid the disputed question of fact having alternative efficacious remedy open. Departure, if any, is the exception but not the rule. A High Court as a whole follows such principle.
(2.) So far as the power of Article 227 is concerned, in earlier, High Courts hardly got any opportunity to apply the power of superintendence under it over the Lower Courts and Tribunals. Number of litigations were much less. Lower Courts had enough opportunity to go through procedural propriety. There was no mushroom growing of Tribunals. Only few traditional Tribunals were existing. Provision was normally applied where there was neither any scope of appeal nor any scope of usual revision. But since when various Tribunals either by way of Constitutional amendment or under the respective statutes are formed and also revisional jurisdictions are curtailed by way of amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure particularly in respect of the interlocutory matters, number of applications under Article 227 of the Constitution of India have been increased. Therefore, if the totality of the scenario is projected it will be seen that from when several jurisdictions of the High Courts are curtailed number of making applications under Article 227 of the Constitution of India have been increased. If this is the trend then formation of Tribunals for the sake of people is a big question for the legislature. It is high time to think whether the installation of various Tribunals is really minimizing number of disputes or increasing the number of disputes. This discussion is not academic - why not - discussions hereunder will say.
(3.) Power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is dependant upon various circumstances of individual cases. No straight jacket formula can be applied. In (2000) 8 SCC 355 : AIR 2000 SC 3230 Vadivelu v. Sundaram, according to me, the judgment supported the order passed by the Learned Single Judge of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the appeal was dismissed. In doing so, the Supreme Court held that when there is an error of jurisdiction or flagrant violation of law laid down by this Court by exercising revisional power, the Court can set aside the order passed by the Tribunal to do justice between the parties. The illegality committed by the Election Tribunal has been corrected by the limited order. There the Counsel appearing for the appellant had argued as follows : 'The powers of the Revisional Court are not as wide as powers of the Appellate Court, and, therefore the Learned Single Judge should not have set aside the order passed by the Election Commission.";