[CASE NUMBER] ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6710 of 2018 [PRECEDENT] Appearance: MR [ENTITY]) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1,2 for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2,3,4,5,6,7 MR [ENTITY] for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE [ENTITY] Date : 26/04/2018 ORAL ORDER
1. ThepresentpetitionunderArticle226ofthe[ACT]of Indiaisfiledforthepurposeofseekingfollowingreliefs:
"A) YourLordshipsmaybepleasedtoallowthepresentSpecial CivilApplication.
B) YourLordshipsmaybepleasedtopassanorderofissuance of appropriate writ, order, direction upon the concerned respondentauthoritiestodecidetherepresentationsandtoissue directionupontherespondentauthoritiestodemolishtheillegal construction and remove the encroachment carried out by the respondentno.4to6onthelandofNarayannagarSocietyknown ascommonplotlandofthesocietywhichissituatedatRevenue SurveyNo.4/2blockno.13ofVillageChhapraBhatha,Amroli, Suratinthepeculiarfactsandcircumstancesofthecase.
C) Anyotherappropriatereliefmaybegrantedasdeemfitby thisHon'bleCourtintheinterestofjustice."
2. The case of the petitioners are that the petitioners are residing at Narayannagar Society situated at Block No.13 of RevenueSurveyNo.4/2atChhapraBhatha,Amroli,Surat.There are as many as 52 members residing and all 52 members are residing in tenements / rowhouse and each of the house is admeasuring55.74sqmtrcontainingtheconstructionof42.45sq mtrareaonthegroundfloor.Itisthecaseofthepetitionersthat after getting the land converted into Nonagricultural land vide order dated 10.11.1989 and after getting the construction permissionon19.07.1991,theconstructionhadbeenputupand petitioners are residing in House Nos.32 and 33 of said NarayannagarSociety.Itisthefurthercaseofthepetitionersthat societyishavingopenspaceareawhichisearmarkedascommon plotinthemapofthesocietyandthesaidcommonplotistobe used for the benefit of all members of the society for various purpose. It has been alleged that the House Nos.31 to 35 are situatedexactlyinfrontofthecommonplotareaandsomeofthe areaofthecommonplotissituatedadjacenttoHouseNo.31and the owners of House Nos.32 and 33 have carried out the constructionbyencroachingtheareaofthecommonplotandsuch illegalconstructionhasbeencarriedoutwhichwasbroughttothe notice of the respondentauthority. Somuchso that Respondent Nos.4 to 6 are keeping cows and buffaloes in the said area for maintainingtheirlivelihood. Bykeepingsuchcattleandutilising thecommonplotareainsuchunauthorisedmanner,some4050 cowsandbuffaloesarebeingkeptandillegalsellofmilkactivities aregoingon.Sincenoactionhasbeeninitiatedbytherespondent authority and representations having not been decided so far, petitionersareleftwithnooptionbutareconstrainedtoapproach this Court by way of present petition under [SECTION] of the [ACT]
3. Mr.[ENTITY], learned advocate appearing for the petitionershascontendedthatinviewofthefactthatRespondent Nos.4 to 6 are utilising the land in question unauthorisedly of commonplotareaandindulgedintoillegalactivitiesoverthespace whichiscommonlymeantforsocietymembersandsuchactivities havenotbeenpreventedbytherespondentauthoritiesandassuch pollutionisbeingcreatedintheentiresocietyandassuchinaction is quite visible in view of the fact that so far said activity is continued.Byallegingthis,Mr.[ENTITY], learnedadvocatefor thepetitionershasstatedandrequestedthataveryinnocuousrelief issoughtinthepetitionwhichwouldnot,ifgranted,harmanyone, asaresultofthis,requeststhisCourttograntreliefasprayedforin thepetition.Noothersubmissionshavebeenmade.
4. While hearing the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners and while going through the papers contained in the petition compilation, it seems that this common area is subject matter of controversy entangled in criminal as well as civil litigations.Thepapersitselfareindicatingthatacriminalcaseis alsoregisteredbeforethePoliceStation,Amroliinthemonthof March,2018andapartfromthismostmaterialfactisthat,with respect to this very common area allegedly in the use of RespondentNos.4to6isthesubjectmatterofCivilSuitNo.55of 2018asreflectingonpage:55ofthepetitioncompilationandas suchthegrievanceswhicharetriedtobevoicedoutareverymuch ceasedbytheCivilCourtwhereeverydetailswithregardtofacts willbeexaminedandadjudicated.Assuchwhenthegrievanceis verymuchpendingbeforetheCivilCourt,theCourtwouldnotlike to exercise extra ordinary jurisdiction in view of the settled principles of law. On such exercise, simply because the suit has beenfiledbyanothermembersofthesociety,thesamewouldnot permit the present petitioners to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court more particularly when the petition containshighlydisputedquestionoffactsofcivilnatureandthe alternative remedy available under the law is already availed of and as such Court would not like to exercise extra ordinary jurisdictionlookingtothepresentscenarioasvisibleonrecord.
5. Normally, simple direction being issued upon authority to takedecisionappearstobeusualbutthesaiddirectionisnottobe so lightly used so as to allow the exercise of extra ordinary jurisdictiontobeusedbyanylitigantinsuchmannerandherethe caseofcommonplotissueisverymuchceasedbythelowerCourt maybeatinstanceofothermembersanditisthesubjectmatterof criminalcaseaswell.Sincesuchdisputeisalsoincidentaltouseof common plot area, the Court would not like to exercise extra ordinaryjurisdiction.Ofcourse,anattemptismadetooversimplify theissueinthecontextofreliefprayedfor,buttheveryfactthat RespondentNo.4to6arealsomadepartiesandassuchauthorities have also been joined as if entire civil dispute is sought to be agitatedinextraordinaryjurisdictionandassuchthisCourtwould notliketoissueanysuchcasualdirectiontotheauthorityonjust asking.Ifanyeffectiveorderistobeobtainedbythepetitioners, the same should be in a very appropriate form and this writ jurisdiction is not possible to be allowed to be utilised for ventilating purely private dispute amongst the members of the society.Thejurisdictionallimitsarewellpropoundedbyseriesof decisionsandoneofsuchelaboratedecisionwhichisreportedlater onaswell,theCourtwouldlike toconsidertobeappliedhere. Hence,therelevantabstractsofthesaiddecisionincaseofSameer SureshGuptathroughPAHolderV/s.RahulKumarAgarwal, reportedin(2013)9SCC374arereproducedhereinafter.
"6.Inourview,theimpugnedorderisliabletobesetaside because while deciding the writ petition filed by the respondentthelearnedSingleJudgeignoredthelimitations of the High Court'sjurisdictionunderArticle227 of the [ACT].TheparametersforexerciseofpowerbytheHigh CourtunderthatArticle were considered bythetwoJudge [PRECEDENT] Afterconsideringvarious facets of the issue,the two Judge Bench culled out the following principles:
"(1)AmendmentbyActNo.46of1999witheffectfrom0107 2002inSection115ofCodeofCivilProcedurecannotanddoes not affect in any manner the jurisdiction of the High Court underArticles226and227ofthe[ACT].
(2) Interlocutoryorders,passedbythecourtssubordinate to theHighCourt,againstwhichremedyofrevisionhasbeen excludedbytheCPCAmendmentActNo.46of1999are neverthelessopentochallengein,andcontinuetobe subject to,certiorariandsupervisoryjurisdictionoftheHighCourt.
(3) Certiorari,under[SECTION] of the [ACT], is issued for correcting gross errors of jurisdiction, i.e. when a subordinatecourt is found to have acted (i) without jurisdiction byassuming jurisdiction where there exists none, or (ii) in excess of its jurisdiction by overstepping or crossing the limits of jurisdiction, or (iii) acting in flagrant disregardof law or therules of procedure or acting in violation of principlesofnatural justice where there is no procedure specified, and therebyoccasioning failure of justice.
(4) Supervisory jurisdiction under [SECTION] of the [ACT]isexercisedfor keeping the subordinate courts withintheboundsoftheirjurisdiction.Whenthesubordinate Courthasassumedajurisdictionwhichitdoesnothaveorhas failedtoexerciseajurisdiction which it does have or the jurisdictionthoughavailableisbeingexercisedbytheCourtina manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injusticehasoccasionedthereby,theHighCourtmaystepinto exerciseitssupervisoryjurisdiction.
(5) Be it a writ of certiorari or the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction,noneisavailabletocorrectmereerrorsoffactorof law unless the following requirements are satisfied : (i) the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedingssuchaswhenitisbasedonclearignoranceorutter disregardoftheprovisionsoflaw,and(ii)a graveinjusticeor grossfailureofjusticehasoccasionedthereby.
(6)Apatenterrorisanerrorwhichisselfevident,i.e.which canbeperceivedordemonstrated without involvingintoany lengthyorcomplicatedargumentoralongdrawn process of reasoning.Wheretwoinferencesarereasonablypossibleandthe subordinatecourthaschosentotakeoneview,theerrorcannot becalledgrossorpatent.
(7) The power to issue a writ of certiorari and the supervisoryjurisdictionaretobeexercisedsparinglyandonlyin appropriate cases where the judicial conscience of the High Courtdictatesittoactlestagrossfailureofjusticeorgrave injustice should occasion. Care, caution and circumspection need to be exercised, when any of the abovesaid two jurisdictionsissoughttobeinvokedduringthependencyofany suit or proceedings in a subordinate court and the error thoughcallingforcorrectionisyetcapableofbeingcorrectedat the conclusion of the proceedings in an appeal or revision preferredthereagainstand entertaining a petition invoking certiorariorsupervisory jurisdiction of High Court would obstructthesmoothflowand/orearlydisposalof the suit or proceedings. The High Court may feel inclined to intervene wheretheerrorissuch,as,ifnotcorrectedatthatverymoment, maybecomeincapableofcorrectionatalaterstageandrefusal tointervenewouldresultintravestyofjusticeorwhere suchrefusalitselfwouldresultinprolongingofthelis.
(8) TheHighCourtinexerciseof certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction willnotcovertitselfintoaCourtof Appeal and indulgeinreappreciationorevaluationofevidenceor correct errorsindrawinginferencesorcorrecterrorsofmereformalor technicalcharacter.
(9) In practice, the parameters for exercising jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari and those calling for exercise of supervisoryjurisdictionarealmostsimilar and the width of jurisdictionexercised by the High Courts in India unlike Englishcourtshasalmostobliterated the distinction between thetwojurisdictions.Whileexercisingjurisdictiontoissueawrit ofcertioraritheHighCourtmayannul or set aside theact, order or proceedings of the subordinate courts but cannot substitute its own decision in place thereof. In exercise of supervisory jurisdiction the High Court may not only give suitabledirectionssoastoguidethesubordinatecourtasto themannerinwhichitwouldactorproceedthereafteror afresh,theHighCourtmayinappropriatecasesitselfmakean order in supersession or substitution of the order of the subordinatecourtasthecourtshouldhavemade in thefacts andcircumstancesofthecase."
7. Thesamequestionwasconsideredby another Bench in [PRECEDENT]
"(a)A petition under [SECTION] of the [ACT] is differentfrom a petition under [SECTION]. The mode of exerciseofpowerbytheHighCourtunderthesetwoarticlesis alsodifferent.
(b)Inanyevent,apetitionunderArticle227cannotbecalleda writ petition. The history of the conferment of writ jurisdiction onHighCourtsis substantiallydifferentfrom the historyofconfermentofthepowerofsuperintendenceonthe HighCourtsunderArticle227andhavebeendiscussedabove.
(c)HighCourtscannot,atthedropofahat,inexerciseofits powerofsuperintendenceunderArticle227ofthe[ACT], interferewiththeordersoftribunalsorcourtsinferiortoit.Nor canit,inexerciseofthispower,actasacourtofappealoverthe ordersofthecourtortribunalsubordinatetoit.Incaseswhere analternativestatutorymodeofredressalhas beenprovided, that would also operate as a restrain on the exercise of this powerbytheHighCourt.
(d)TheparametersofinterferencebyHighCourtsinexerciseof theirpowerofsuperintendencehavebeenrepeatedlylaiddown bythisCourt.InthisregardtheHighCourtmustbeguidedby theprincipleslaiddownbythe[ACT]BenchofthisCourt inWaryamSinghandtheprinciplesinWaryamSinghhave beenrepeatedlyfollowedbysubsequent[ACT]Benches andvariousotherdecisionsofthisCourt.
(e)AccordingtotheratioinWaryamSingh,followedin subsequentcases,theHighCourtinexerciseofitsjurisdictionof superintendence can interfere in order only to keep the tribunalsandcourtssubordinatetoit,"within the bounds of theirauthority".
(f)Inordertoensurethatlawisfollowed by such tribunals andcourtsbyexercisingjurisdictionwhichis vested in them andbynotdeclining to exercise the jurisdiction which is vestedinthem.
(g)Apartfromthesituationspointedin(e)and(f),HighCourt caninterfereinexerciseofitspowerofsuperintendencewhen therehas been a patent perversity in the orders of the tribunalsandcourtssubordinatetoitorwheretherehasbeena gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of naturaljusticehavebeenflouted.
(h)InexerciseofitspowerofsuperintendenceHighCourt cannotinterferetocorrectmereerrorsoflaworfact or just becauseanotherviewthantheonetakenbythetribunalsor courtssubordinatetoit,isapossibleview.Inotherwordsthe jurisdictionhastobeverysparinglyexercised.
(i)TheHighCourt'spowerofsuperintendenceunderArticle227 cannotbecurtailedbyanystatute.Ithasbeendeclaredapartof the basic structure of the [ACT] by the [ACT] BenchofthisCourtinL.ChandraKumarv.UnionofIndiaand thereforeabridgmentbyaconstitutionalamendmentisalsovery doubtful.
(j)Itmaybetruethata statutoryamendmentofarather cognateprovision,[ACT] andcannotcutdowntheambitofHighCourt's power under Article227.Atthesametime,itmustberememberedthatsuch statutory amendment does not correspondingly expand the HighCourt'sjurisdictionofsuperintendenceunderArticle227.
(k)Thepowerisdiscretionaryandhastobeexercisedon equitableprinciple.Inanappropriatecase,the power can be exercisedsuomotu.
(l)Onaproperappreciationofthewideandunfetteredpowerof theHighCourtunderArticle227,ittranspires that the main object of this article is to keep strict administrative and judicialcontrolbytheHigh Court on the administration of justicewithinitsterritory.
(m) The object of superintendence, both administrative and judicial, is to maintain efficiency, smooth and orderly functioningoftheentiremachineryofjusticeinsuchawayasit does not bring it into any disrepute. The power of interferenceunderthisarticleistobekepttotheminimum to ensurethatthewheelofjusticedoesnotcometoahaltandthe fountainofjusticeremainspure andunpollutedin order to maintainpublicconfidenceinthefunctioningof the tribunals andcourtssubordinatetotheHighCourt.
(n)Thisreserveandexceptionalpowerofjudicialinterventionis nottobeexercisedjustforgrantof relief in individualcases butshouldbedirectedforpromotionofpublicconfidenceinthe administrationofjusticeinthelarger public interestwhereas Article226ismeantforprotectionofindividualgrievance. Therefore,thepowerunderArticle227maybeunfettered but its exercise is subject to high degree of judicial disciplinepointedoutabove.
(o)Animproperandafrequentexerciseofthispowerwillbe counterproductive andwilldivestthis extraordinarypower of itsstrengthandvitality."
6. In view of aforesaid limits of exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction,Courtisoftheviewthatthisisnotafitcaseinwhich anywritjurisdictionistobeexercised.Theconceptofissuanceof writmoreparticularlymandamusinnatureistriedtobedilutedby seekingsuchkindofrelief,theCourtwouldnotliketoentertain thesame.Accordingly,petitionbeingdevoidofmeritsthesameis dismissedwithnoorderastocosts.Directserviceispermitted.
([ENTITY], J) [PRECEDENT]