Tantia Constructions Ltd. v. The State Of Bihar
Patna High Court CWJC No.20689 of 2014 (2) dt.01-02-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20689 of 2014 ====================================================== Tantia Constructions Ltd.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vikas Ratan Bharti For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ga11- Partha Sarthy ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO ORAL ORDER 01-02-2016 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State Authorities.
This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for a direction to the learned Sub Judge I, Patna to dispose of the Misc. Case No.14 of 2012 within a month.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhey Shyam and another v. Chhabi Nath and others, (2015) 5 Supreme Court Cases 423 has held that all the Courts in the jurisdiction of a High Court are subordinate to it and subject to its control and supervision under Article 227. Control of working of the subordinate courts in dealing with their judicial orders is exercised by way of appellate or revisional powers, or power of superintendence under Article 227. While appellate or revisional jurisdiction is regulated by the statutes, power of superintendence
Patna High Court CWJC No.20689 of 2014 (2) dt.01-02-2016 under Article 227 is constitutional. Despite the curtailment Of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 C.P.C., the jurisdiction of High Court under Article 227 remains unaffected, and has not resulted in expanding High Court's power of superintendence. Therefore, in view of the settled principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the orders against which neither appeal is provided nor revision is provided, that can be examined in supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. For the general direction, as claimed in this writ application, Article 227 is not maintainable.
Thus, this writ application is dismissed.
(Mungeshwar Sahoo, J) Saurabh/- U T