New Delhi: The Supreme Court has set aside a Madhya Pradesh High Court Division Bench order that had non-suited an intra-court appellant on the ground that a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ought to be treated as one under Article 227, holding that the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 cannot be curtailed by such a re-characterisation so as to deny an appellant his appellate remedy.
A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva was hearing a Civil Appeal, arising out of Special Leave Petition against an order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Seat at Jabalpur.
The Division Bench of the High Court had held that although the writ petition filed by the respondents was, in form, one under Article 226 of the Constitution, it ought to be treated as a petition under Article 227, with the consequence that no intra-court appeal would lie against the order passed therein. Counsel for the respondents sought to sustain this view before the Supreme Court by relying on an earlier Division Bench judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Dangalia vs. Deshraj.
The Supreme Court, however, noted that the very judgment relied upon specifically recognised that reversal of orders passed by Revenue Courts could be sought in writ proceedings either under Article 226 or under Article 227 of the Constitution, and therefore did not support the proposition that a petition challenging a Revenue Court order must necessarily be treated as one under Article 227 alone.
Reiterating settled law, the Court held that the extraordinary jurisdiction and powers of the High Courts under Article 226 cannot be scuttled or whittled down by any legislation, and that Revenue Courts, which exercise statutory quasi-judicial powers, cannot be equated with or treated on par with judicial courts. The validity of orders passed by such Revenue Courts, the Bench held, can accordingly be tested before the High Court in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
In that view, the Court held that the Division Bench's approach of treating a petition filed under Article 226 as one under Article 227, so as to deny the appellant an appellate remedy, could not be sustained.
The impugned order dated 20.07.2023 was accordingly set aside, and Writ Appeal No. 576/2023 was restored to the file of the High Court to be considered afresh on its own merits and in accordance with law, with all issues left open. The appeal was allowed in these terms, with pending applications, if any, disposed of.
Appearances:
For the Appellant: Mr. Uday Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Shivani Lal and other Advocates, Mr. Parminder Singh Bhullar, AOR.
For the Respondents: Mr. Siddharth R. Gupta and other Advocates, Mr. Mrigank Prabhakar, AOR.
Case Title: Vrindavan Chaturvedi vs. Pushpa Devi Khemka & Ors., Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 23958/2023
