B.J.SHETHNA, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) PETITIONER Tej Singh has filed this petition in his capacity as president of Bidasar -Degana Yatri Parivahan Association under Article 226 of the Constitution and prayed that the impugned orders passed by the R.T.A., Ajmer dated 12.2.92 (Annex. 16) and the order dated 18.6.92 (Annex. 17) passed by the S.T.A. Tribunal, Jaipur be quashed and set aside. This petition is labelled as a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but strictly speaking it is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Arora, learned Counsel for the petitioner requested that this petition be treated as a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution and the same may be decided accordingly. Even if this petition is treated as a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution then also after going through the impugned orders passed by the R.T.A and S.T.A., I do not find any substance in this petition. No error much less jurisdictional error has been committed by the R.T.A. or the S.T.A.T. while passing the impugned orders at Annexures 16 and 17 which calls for the interference by this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution. The scope of the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is very narrow and limited. As held by the Supreme Court in case of Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustkim : [1984]1SCR211 even error of law cannot be corrected by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) A preliminary objection was raised regarding the maintainability of this writ petition at the instance of Shri Tej Singh in his capacity as a President of the Association by learned Counsel Shri Dave for the respondent. There is lot of substance in the preliminary objection raised by Shri Dave. The appeal filed by petitioner Tej Singh before S.T.A.T. was also not maintainable. When the Tribunal held that the appeal filed by Tej Singh in his capacity as a President of the Association was not maintainable. The learned Tribunal rightly held that all the persons should have filed separate appeals against the order passed by R.T.A. Therefore, on this ground also, this revision deserves to be dismissed.;