AF/? ^te^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION fC1 No. 1987 of2009 PETITIONER : Smt. Rachna Rao, Aged about 34 years, W/o Shri Prabhakar Rao, D/o Doctor Shri T.J.R.Naidu, Aged about 34 years, R/o Church Road, Gandhi Nagar, Behind BalraiTi Talkies, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. Family Court, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Prabhakar Rao, Aged about 34 years, S/o Shri Laxman Rao, R/o House of M.C.Dubey, Indra Colony, Tarbahar, Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER_ARTICLE 226_OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri SatishK.Aenihotri^L Present: Shri Rahul Birtharey, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on 24th day of July, 2009) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction against the Family Court, Bilaspur, wherein the petitioner is not happy with the conduct ofthe Family Court. This petition is preferred under Article 226 ofthe Constitution oflndia. 2. It is well settled that no writ can be issued against any judicial authority. Article 227 has been incorporated in the Constitution of India, which gives power of superintendence to the High Court over all subordinate Courts and tribunals to interfere with the order passed by the Courts below in such cases where perversity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of flie record.It is not in dispute that the petitioner seeks a direction to the - Family Court, in conduct ofthe proceedings, which is subordinate to the High Court. Thus, the only remedy, which may be available to the petitioner, is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, not under Article 226. 3 6 F ••(;. w- !" /'"' 5. A Bench of nine Hon'ble Judges of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State ofMaharashtra and another , in respect ofjurisdiction ofthe High Court to issue writ against a civil court, observed as under: "63....The ultimate proposition is set out in the terms: "Certiorari does not lie to quash the judgments of inferior Courts of civil jurisdiction". These observations would indicate that in England the judicial orders passed by civil Courts of plenary jurisdiction in or in relation to matters brought before them are not held to be amenable to the jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari." Recently, in Radheshyam and another v. Chhabi Nath and others , the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after having considered Surya Devi Rai, observed as under: "31. Under Article 227 ofthe Constitution, the High Court does not issue a writ of certiorari. Article 227 of the Constitution vests the High Courts with a power of superintendence which is to be very sparingly exercised to keep tribunals and courts within the bounds oftheir authority. Under Article 227, orders of both civil and criminal courts can be examined only in very exceptional case when manifest miscarriage of justice has been occasioned. Such power, however, is not to be exercised to correct a mistake of fact and oflaw. 32. The essential distinctions in the exercise of power between Articles 226 and 227 are well known and pointed out in Surya Devi Rai and wifh that we have no disagreement. But we are unable to agree with the legal proposition laid down in Surya Devi Rai that judicial orders passed by a civil court can be examined and then corrected/reversed by the writ court uader Article 226 in exercise of its power under a writ of certiorari. We are ofthe view that the aforesaid proposifion laid down in Surya Devi Rai, is contrary to the ratio in Mirajkar and the ratio m M.irajkar has not been overruled in Rupa Ashok Hurra." Accordingly, this petition under Article 226 is dismissed as not maintainable. However, in the interest ofjustice, liberty is reserved to fhe petitioner to take recourse to the remedy, available under provisions oflaw, ifso advised. -——~~~~~~~ Satish K. Agnihotn Judge — ' AIR 1967 SC 1 (V 54 Cl)a 2 (2009) 5 SCC 616