(1.) Heard Sri Rajesh Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Atul Dayal, learned counsel appearing for respondents.
(2.) Despite repeated query, learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any manifest error in the impugned judgments so as to warrant interference of this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 /227 of the Constitution.
(3.) The scope of judicial review in such matters where the orders of courts below are assailed before this Court in a writ petition under Article 226 /227 of the Constitution is very limited. This power involves a duty on the High Court to keep the inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do what their duty requires and that they do it in a legal manner. But this power does not vest the High Court with any unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Court or Tribunal. It must be restricted to cases of grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principle of law or justice, where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes.