* THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.145, 146, 152, 156, 158, 160, 161 & 169 OF 2011 %Date: 29.01.2011 Sri Kommisetti Venkata Satyanarayana … Petitioner And 1. The Inspector of Vigilance and Enforcement Department, Eluru., and 3 others. … Respondents ! Counsel for the petitioner: Smt. V.Padmaja Reddy ^ Counsel for the respondents : None <GIST: >HEAD NOTE: 1. 1975 (1) An.W.R. 133 (F.B.) 2. 2010 (3) ALT 803 3. AIR 2000 SC 3495 THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.145, 146, 152, 156, 158, 160, 161 & 169 OF 2011 DATED: 29.01.2011 Between : Sri Kommisetti Venkata Satyanarayana … Petitioner And 4. The Inspector of Vigilance and Enforcement Department, Eluru., and 3 others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.145, 146, 152, 156, 158, 160, 161 & 169 OF 2011 COMMON ORDER : All these Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the Judgments of the learned District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru in Appeals under Section 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The petitioners are stated to be the licensees under the Control Orders made under Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Alleging that the petitioners had indulged in clandestine business by not maintaining the records/accounts properly and contravened the provisions of the Control Orders as well as the conditions of Licences, the stocks available in the licensed premises were seized and proceedings were initiated under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act for confiscation. After due enquiry, the Joint Collector, West Godavari, Eluru in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, ordered confiscation of the entire stocks seized. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred appeals under Section 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act before the Principal District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru. By separate judgments, the learned Principal District Judge disposed of the appeals reducing the confiscation of the seized stock from 100% to 50%. The said orders are under challenge in these Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material available on record. The impugned orders are sought to be challenged mainly on the ground that the Court below failed to appreciate that the alleged contraventions of the provisions of Control Orders and conditions of licence were not established. It is also contended that the Court below had committed an error in directing confiscation of 50% of the seized stock and that in the facts and circumstances of the cases on hand the Court below ought to have set aside the orders of confiscation in toto and directed release of the entire seized stock. At the outset, it is to be noticed that under Section 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (as it stands after the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981 stood lapsed) the appellate powers are vested on the District & Sessions Judge i.e., the judicial authority appointed by the State Government. The question whether a District & Sessions Judge who is the judicial authority under Section 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act is a persona designata or acts as a Court was considered by a Full Bench of this Court in PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v. LEGISETTY RAMAYYA[1]. It was held by the Full Bench that the District & Sessions Judge acting under Section 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act was a Court and not a persona designata. It was further held that confiscation proceedings being in the nature of criminal proceedings, the District & Sessions Judge acts as an inferior Criminal Court in relation to the High Court within the meaning of Section 435 of Cr.P.C. and therefore a Revision is maintainable under Section 435 or Section 439 of Cr.P.C. against the order of the appellate authority under Section 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act even though the confiscation proceedings cannot be said to be those that are held under the Criminal Procedure Code. The ratio laid down by the Full Bench was followed by a learned Single Judge in a recent decision in V. VENUGOPAL v. JOINT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT[2] wherein a question was raised with regard to the maintainability of a writ petition against the order passed by the District & Sessions Court under Section 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act. Having considered the relevant statutory provisions under the Essential Commodities Act as well as the law laid down by the Apex Court and also the Full bench in LEGISETTY RAMAYYA’S case (1 supra), it was held in V. VENUGOPAL’S case (2 supra) as under: “Therefore, there cannot be any doubt that the certiorari jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 and the judicial superintendence under Article 227 of Constitution of India would certainly enable the High Court to entertain writ petition under Article 226 and revision petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India if a Judgment of the inferior Court is not supported by evidence at all (see Baldeo Singh v State of Bihar8) or the inferior Court acted without jurisdiction (see Gopal Das Sindhi v State of Assam9 ). It is also the law that the provisions of statute law confer appellate/revisional jurisdiction on the High Court do not in any manner circumscribe the Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of Constitution of India. Any provision including no certiorari clause in a statute does not bar the power of judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India because it is part of the inviolable basic structure of the Constitution. There are quite a few precedents supporting this view to which a reference is made hereafter.” Thus while concluding that even where the special statute read with provisions in Criminal Procedure Code provide for remedy of a revision against inferior criminal court acting either as judicial authority o r persona designata, a petition for Writ of Certiorari was not absolutely barred, this Court in V. VENUGOPAL’S case (2 supra) went into merits of the case and reduced the confiscation from 20% to 5%. Placing much reliance upon the above said decision, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the orders under Revision are liable to be set aside and the entire stock seized should be ordered to be released in exercise of the jurisdiction conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. There can be no dispute that the power of superintendence conferred upon this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India includes the power of judicial revision. However the said power cannot be exercised to correct the mere erroneous decisions of the inferior courts when they are made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Court. It has been reiterated by the Courts in a catena of decisions that the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 is warranted only where the inferior court assumes erroneous jurisdiction or exceeds the jurisdiction or where it refused to exercise the jurisdiction conferred under law. It is true that the power of superintendence under Article 227 can also be exercised in appropriate cases for correcting the finding of fact reached by the inferior Court, however, the law is well settled that such interference can be only where there was no evidence at all to justify such a conclusion and if no reasonable person could possibly have come to the conclusion which the Court has come or in other words it is a finding which was perverse in law [vide Mani Nariman Daruwala v. Phiroz N.Bhatena (AIR 1991 SC 1494) ]. It is also held in KHIMJI VIDHU v. PREMIER HIGH SCHOOL[3] that the jurisdiction under Article 227 must be sparingly exercised and may be exercised to correct the error of jurisdiction and the like but not to upset pure findings of fact. In the light of the settled principles of law noticed above, it is clear that the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can be exercised only where the order of the inferior Court suffered from jurisdictional error, gross violation of natural justice, errors of law apparent on the face of the record, perverse findings or to prevent abuse of process of Court or to cure gross miscarriage of justice but not to correct mere wrong decisions. In the cases on hand, the petitioners are merely assailing the findings of fact recorded by the Court below and there is absolutely no dispute as to the jurisdiction. It is not the case of the petitioners that the orders under challenge suffered from any error of law apparent on the face of the record nor any case could be made out that the orders require correction of any grave error. Hence, I am of the opinion that the interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not warranted. In the circumstances, all the Civil Revision Petitions are hereby dismissed. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits and this shall not preclude the petitioners to avail the proper remedy available under law if so advised. The original documents in all the revision petitions be returned to the learned counsel for the petitioner forthwith. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Date: 29.01.2011 Note: L.R. copy to be marked. B/o gbs [1] 1975 (1) An.W.R. 133 (F.B.) [2] 2010 (3) ALT 803 [3] AIR 2000 SC 3495