Praveen Radhakrishnan v. Sub Registrar, Balramapuram; Ambika Devi, Sub Registrar, Balramapuram; Village Officer, Athiyannoor; State of Kerala represented by its Secretary, Registration Department

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/9TH AGRAHAYANA, 1939** ## **OP(C).No. 3426 of 2017 ()** ## **-------------------------I.A 267/2017 IN O.S.318/1996 SUB COURT, THALASSERY** **--------------** ## **PETITIONER:** **-----------** ## **PRAVEEN RADHAKRISHNAN,** **AGED 31 YEARS, S/O LATE RADHAKRISHNAN, KARTHIKEYA NILAYAM, 180-2/388,ARALUMOODU P.O, ATHIYANNOOR VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT PIN 695 123** **BY ADV. SRI.V.SETHUNATH** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** **--------------** **1. THE SUB REGISTRAR, SUB REGISTER OFFICE, BALARAMAPURAM P.O, PIN 695 501** **2. SMT.AMBIKA DEVI, THE SUB REGISTRAR, SUB REGISTER OFFICE, BALARAMAPURAM P.O, PIN 695 501** **3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ATHIYANNOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT ARALUMOODU P.O, PIN 695 123** **4. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695 001** **R1,R3 & R4 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI M.I.JOHNSON** **THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-11-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **K.V.** ## **OP(C).No. 3426 of 2017 () --------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A NO 267/2017 ALONG WITH SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ADDL. SUB COURT, THALASSERY EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN O.P(CIVIL) NO 2437/2017 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN OP(C) NO 2781/2017 EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPTS ISSUED BY THE SUB REGISTRAR, BALARAMAPURAM AND VILLAGE OFFICER, ATHIYANNOOR EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE ADDL,SUB COURT, THALASSERY IN I.A NO 1414/2017 WHICH COMMUNICATED TO THE SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, BALARAMAPURAM ON 20-10-2017 EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE TAKEN FOR THE PROPERTY ON 21.11.2017. EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TRAVEL ITINERY OF THE PETITIONER RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL ----------------------/TRUE COPY/ K.V. P.S.TO JUDGE** ## **ANIL K.NARENDRAN, J.** ## **--------------------------------------O.P.(C).No.3426 of 2017 ---------------------------------------Dated this the 30[th] day of November, 2017** ## **J U D G M E N T** This Original Petition was not numbered by the Registry noting defect touching the question of maintainability and accordingly, it was originally listed as an unnumbered Original Petition. On 29.11.2017, this Court directed the Registry to number the Original Petition, on condition that the question of maintainability will be decided in the judicial side. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. The petitioner who is the third defendant in O.S.No.318 of 1996 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Thalassery has filed this Original Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs; - 1) To direct 1 & 2 respondents to comply with the order in I.A.No.1414/2017 in O.S.No.318/1996 on the file of Addl.Sub court, Thalassery. - 2) To direct the 2[nd] respondent to pay the compensation of Rs.70,000/- incurred by the petitioner. - 3) To direct the 4[th] respondent to take departmental action against the 2[nd] respondent for non compliance of the order of the court. - 4) To initiate contempt proceedings against the 2[nd] O.P.(C).No.3426 of 2017 2 ## respondent under Contempt of Court Act. 4. The respondents in this Original Petition are (1) the Sub Registrar, Balaramapuram; (2) Smt.Ambika Devi, Sub Registrar, Balaramapuram; (3) the Village Officer, Athiyannoor; and (4) the State of Kerala represented by its Secretary, Registration Department. None of the respondents are in this Original Petition are parties to O.S.No.318 of 1996 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Thalassery or to any interlocutory application filed in that suit. 5. In **Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil [(2010) 8 SCC 329]** the Apex Court, while analysing the scope and ambit of the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, held that the object of superintendence, both administrative and judicial, is to maintain efficiency, smooth and orderly functioning of the entire machinery of justice in such a way as it does not bring it into any disrepute. The power of interference under Article 227 is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public O.P.(C).No.3426 of 2017 3 confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and courts subordinate to the High Court. 6. In **Jai Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi [(2010) 9 SCC 385]** , while considering the nature and scope of the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Apex Court held that, undoubtedly the High Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution, has the jurisdiction to ensure that all subordinate courts as well as statutory or quasi judicial tribunals, exercise the powers vested in them, within the bounds of their authority. The High Court has the power and the jurisdiction to ensure that they act in accordance with the well established principles of law. The High Court is vested with the powers of superintendence and/or judicial revision, even in matters where no revision or appeal lies to the High Court. The jurisdiction under this Article is, in some ways, wider than the power and jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is, however, well to remember the well known adage that greater the power, greater the care and caution in exercise thereof. The High Court is, therefore, expected to exercise such wide powers with great care, caution and 4 O.P.(C).No.3426 of 2017 circumspection. The exercise of jurisdiction must be within the well recognised constraints. It cannot be exercised like a 'bull in a china shop', to correct all errors of the judgment of a court or tribunal, acting within the limits of its jurisdiction. This correctional jurisdiction can be exercised in cases where orders have been passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice. 7. Therefore, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India this Court has the jurisdiction to ensure that all subordinate courts as well as statutory or quasi judicial tribunals, exercise the powers vested in them, within the bounds of their authority. This correctional jurisdiction can be exercised in cases where orders have been passed a subordinate court or tribunal in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice. 8. The decision of the Apex Court in **Ram Kishan Fauji v. State of Haryana [(2017) 5 SCC 533]** relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, would not in any manner support his argument that even in an original petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India this Court can O.P.(C).No.3426 of 2017 5 issue writs in the nature of mandamus, certiorari, etc. In the said decision, the Apex Court reiterated that, under Article 226 of the Constitution the High Courts have power to issue directions, orders and writs to any person or authority including any Government. Under Article 227 every High Court has power of superintendence over all Courts and Tribunals throughout the territory in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. The power to issue writs is not the same as the power of superintendence. By no stretch of imagination can a writ in the nature of habeas corpus or mandamus or quo warranto or prohibition or certiorari be equated with the power of superintendence. These are writs which are directed against persons, authorities and the State. The power of superintendence conferred upon every High Court by Article 227 is a supervisory jurisdiction intended to ensure that subordinate Courts and Tribunals act within the limits of their authority and according to law. 9. The reliefs sought for in this Original Petition are beyond the scope of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. O.P.(C).No.3426 of 2017 6 In the result, this Original Petition is dismissed as not maintainable. Sd/- **ANIL K.NARENDRAN JUDGE** AV