Bombay High Court

Amrapali Sakharam Kamble vs The District Collector Kolhapur on 8 August, 2024

2024:BHC-AS:31649


                                                                901-WP-13629-2023.docx

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
rrpillai                          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                 WRIT PETITION NO. 13629 OF 2023
                Smt. Amrapali Sakharam Kamble,
                Age :35 years, Occu : Agriculture,
                R/o, Mhasrang, Taluka :Bhudargad,
                District : Kolhapur                                           ..... Petitioner
                                       Versus
                1.     The District Collector,
                       Kolhapur, having office at
                       Collectorate of Kolhapur,
                       Swarajya Bhavan, Assembly Road,
                       Nagala Park, Kolhapur

                2.     The Tahsildar, Bhudargad Taluka @
                       Presiding Officer, Having Office at
                       Tahsildar Office, Gargoti,
                       Taluka : Bhudargad, District : Kolhapur

                3.     Grampanchayat Mhasrang,
                       Taluka : Bhudargad, District : Kolhapur,
                       Through its Gramsevak

                4.     Shri Uttam Krushna Dhuri
                       Age : 55 Years, Occu: Agriculture,
                       R/o. Mhasrang, Taluka :Bhudargad
                       District : Kolhapur

                5.     Smt. Swanandi Sachin Pandare


                                                    1/24


                ::: Uploaded on - 08/08/2024                 ::: Downloaded on - 09/08/2024 10:24:06 :::
                                                 901-WP-13629-2023.docx

       Age : 26 Years, Occu : Agriculture,
       R/o. Mhasarang, Taluka : Bhudargad
       District : Kolhapur
6.     Smt. Nahnubi Adam Shaikh
       Age : 60 Years, Occu : Agriculture,
       R/o. Mhasarang, Taluka : Bhudargad
       District : Kolhapur

7.     Smt. Shama Anwar Shaikh
       Age : 45 Years, Occu : Agriculture,
       R/o. Mhasarang, Taluka : Bhudargad
       District : Kolhapur

8.     Smt. Shahutai Sanjay Gurav
       Age : 40 Years, Occu : Agriculture,
       R/o. Mhasarang, Taluka : Bhudargad
       District : Kolhapur

9.     Shri Eknath Vishnu Divekar
       Age : 38 Years, Occu : Agriculture,
       R/o. Mhasarang, Taluka : Bhudargad
       District : Kolhapur

10.    Smt. Suvarna Sunil Chavan
       Age :44 Years, Occu : Agriculture,
       R/o. Mhasarang, Taluka : Bhudargad
       District : Kolhapur

11.    Shri. Pandharinath Ananda Kamble
       Age : 52 Years, Occu : Agriculture,

                                    2/24


::: Uploaded on - 08/08/2024                 ::: Downloaded on - 09/08/2024 10:24:06 :::
                                                    901-WP-13629-2023.docx

        R/o. Mhasarang, Taluka : Bhudargad
        District : Kolhapur                                     ..... Respondents

Mr. Utkarsh Desai i/b. Mr. Prashant Bhavake for the Petitioner.
Smt. Sulbha Chipade, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Mr. Nikhil Dilip Waje a/w. Mr. Vishesh Srivastav a/w. Mr. Prem Gada
for Respondent Nos. 4 to 10.

                                    CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.

                                    RESERVED ON : 8th MAY 2024

                                    PRONOUNCED ON : 8th AUGUST 2024

JUDGMENT:

1. This petition is filed by the Sarpanch of Mhasrang Gram

Panchayat to challenge the order of approval of the No-Confidence

motion passed against her.

FACTS IN BRIEF:

2. The petitioner and respondent nos. 4 to 10 were elected as

members of the Mhasrang Gram Panchayat on 18 th January 2021.

The petitioner got elected as Sarpanch from amongst the members on

26th February 2021. It is the case of the members of the Gram

Panchayat that the petitioner has remained absent from all the

meetings since October 2022. The petitioner had filed an application

901-WP-13629-2023.docx

seeking leave of absence from 23rd December 2022 to 6th January

2023 on account of the ill health of her son, who was receiving

treatment in Mumbai. The petitioner's leave of absence was approved

by the Gram Panchayat on 26 th December 2022. The petitioner filed

another leave application on 24 th February 2023, seeking leave of

absence on similar grounds from 24 th February 2023 to 20th March

2023.

3. Respondent nos. 4 to 10 contended that: (i) the petitioner's

application for leave of absence from 24 th February 2023 to 20th March

2023 was rejected in the meeting held on 25 th February 2023, (ii) a

requisition for passing a No-Confidence motion against the petitioner

was moved by them on 27 th February 2023 before the learned

Tahsildar, (iii) notice under Section 35 of the Maharashtra Village

Panchayat Act, 1958 ("the said Act") was served upon the petitioner by

the learned Tahsildar intimating her that the meeting for deciding

requisition for No-Confidence motion would be held on 3 rd March 2023

at 2.00 pm, (iv) on 3rd March 2023, the petitioner filed her written

submission through her father-in-law in the meeting convened for

deciding requisition for No-Confidence motion, (v) the learned

Tahsildar conducted the meeting on 3 rd March 2023 and No-

901-WP-13629-2023.docx

Confidence motion was passed unanimously by seven out of nine

members present in the meeting.

4. Aggrieved by the No-Confidence Motion passed by the Gram

Panchayat, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 16 of the said

Act. By the impugned order dated 18 th September 2023, the learned

Collector dismissed the petitioner's appeal. Hence, the present

petition.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER :

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on

24th February 2023, the petitioner had already submitted her

application for leave of absence from 24 th February 2023 to 20th March

2023. The said application was illegally rejected on 25 th February

2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner thus submitted that knowing

fully well that the petitioner was absent due to the ill health of her son,

who was undergoing treatment for a bone marrow transplant at Wadia

Hospital, Mumbai, the members of the Gram Panchayat with malafide

intention moved the requisition for No- Confidence motion against the

petitioner. The application for leave of absence dated 25 th February

2023 was rejected on the same day, and an immediate requisition

901-WP-13629-2023.docx

notice was issued on 27th February 2023.

6. It is the petitioner's case that though the notice of the meeting for

deciding requisition for No-Confidence motion was served upon the

petitioner, the requisition submitted by the members of the Gram

Panchayat was not served upon her. By referring to copies of the

minutes of the meeting submitted before this Court by the learned

counsel for respondent nos. 4 to 10, the learned counsel for the

petitioner submitted that the minutes had been shown to be signed by

the Sarpanch, i.e. the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that the minutes of the meeting recorded by the Gram

Panchayat are suspicious. Learned counsel submitted that when the

petitioner was not present from 24 th February 2023 to 20th March 2023,

there was no question of the petitioner signing the minutes of the

meeting rejecting the petitioner's application for leave of absence.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in view

of Rule 2(2-B) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Sarpanch and Upa-

Sarpanch (No Confidence Motion) Rules, 1975 ("the said Rules"), it is

mandatory to supply a copy of the requisition for No-Confidence

motion. However, in the present case the copy of the requisition

901-WP-13629-2023.docx

moved by the members of the Gram Panchayat was not served upon

the petitioner.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the panchnama

recorded at the time of service of notice under Section 35 on the

petitioner. He submitted that perusal of the panchanama would show

that only notice was served upon the petitioner by affixing, but the

copy of the requisition was not supplied. Learned counsel for the

petitioner submitted that the petitioner was thus deprived of knowing

the reason for the No-Confidence motion and was thus deprived of

exercising her right to speak in the meeting.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that along with the

notice under Section 35, the petitioner was, for the first time, informed

about the rejection of her application for leave of absence. Hence, in

such circumstances, the petitioner was unable to remain present at the

meeting and exercise her right to speak. However, the petitioner,

through her father-in-law, had filed her written submission stating that

she was away due to the treatment of her son and had already filed an

application for leave of absence. Hence, the petitioner had requested

to adjourn the meeting. Learned counsel for the petitioner thus

901-WP-13629-2023.docx

submitted that the petitioner is deprived of her right to speak in the

meeting convened for deciding the requisition of a No-Confidence

motion against the petitioner.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of this

Court in the case of Dnyandev Mohiniraj Nipunage etc. Vs State of

Maharashtra1 to support his contention that the No-Confidence motion

cannot be passed without due compliance under Section 35 of the said

Act. With regard to his submissions on the said Rules and compliance

under Rule 2(2), learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the

decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Yamunabai Chavan Vs

Sarubai Jadhav2. Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied

upon the decision of this Court in the case of Nimba Rajaram Mali Vs

The Collector and Others 3 to support his contention that due

compliance of Section 35 of the said Rule read with Rule 2 of the No-

Confidence Motion Rules is mandatory.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner thus submitted that there is a

breach of compliance under Section 35 read with the said Rules,

depriving the petitioner of her right to speak. He further submitted that

(2000) MAHLR 729

(2004)ALL MR 93 (BOM)

AIR 1999 BOMBAY 335

901-WP-13629-2023.docx

the learned Collector failed to take into consideration the aforesaid

contentions and dismissed the petitioner's appeal without any valid

reasons. Learned counsel thus submits that the present petition,

therefore, requires interference by invoking power under Articles 226

and 227 of the Constitution of India.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS NOS. 4 TO

10:

12. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 4 to 10 ("members")

supported the impugned order and the No-Confidence Motion. He

submitted that under sub-section (2) of Section 35 of the said Act, the

Tahsildar is under obligation to conduct the meeting within seven days

of the date of requisition. He submitted that the notice under Section

35 was served upon the petitioner along with a copy of the requisition.

He submitted that a perusal of the panchnama recorded at the time of

service of notice clearly indicates that even the copy of the requisition

was served upon the petitioner.

13. Learned counsel for the members further submitted that the

petitioner is absent from the meetings of the Gram Panchayat right

from 25th October 2022. Initially, the petitioner's leave of absence was

901-WP-13629-2023.docx

allowed till 6th January 2023. However, she again filed an application

for leave of absence. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner

was duly informed about the rejection of her leave application. Hence,

the petitioner was well aware that she was not permitted to remain

absent, and thus, being Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, the

petitioner was under obligation to attend meetings of the Gram

Panchayat. However, inspite of having knowledge that her leave

application was not approved, the petitioner chose to remain absent.

14. Thereafter, by referring to an affidavit in rejoinder filed by the

petitioner, learned counsel for the members submitted that the

affirmation of the affidavit in rejoinder done by the petitioner shows that

she is residing in Miraj. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the

members, it is clear that the petitioner does not even reside within the

locality of Mhasrang Gram Panchayat, which is in Kolhapur. Thus, it is

submitted that the petitioner has not come to this Court with clean

hands. Learned counsel for the members thus submitted that the

members of the Gram Panchayat have no faith in the petitioner and

thus submitted a requisition for passing a No-Confidence motion

against her. He submitted that after following the necessary procedure

under Section 35 read with the said Rules, the No-Confidence motion

901-WP-13629-2023.docx

is rightly passed against the petitioner, and thus, she is not entitled to

seek any relief in this petition.

15. With reference to the decisions of this Court relied upon by the

learned counsel for the petitioner are concerned, learned counsel for

the members submitted that once notice is served for conducting a

meeting on the requisition of No-Confidence motion, Sarpanch or Upa-

Sarpanch are not permitted to seek any adjournment and that once

motion is duly served upon the Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch as required

under Section 35 read with the said Rules, the No-Confidence motion

can be passed even in absence of Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch.

Learned counsel for the members submitted that the petitioner is thus

not entitled to argue that she is deprived of her right to speak. He

submitted that once the petitioner was intimated that her application for

leave of absence was not approved it was her obligation to attend the

meeting and exercise her right to speak.

16. Learned counsel for the members submitted that this Court, in

the decision of Dnyandev Mohiniraj Nipunage, held that the provisions

of the sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 of the said Rules are directory in nature

and not mandatory. However, even otherwise, the notice and the

901-WP-13629-2023.docx

requisition were served upon the petitioner. Learned counsel for the

members thus submitted that since the petitioner was absent from her

address, the notice for meeting and requisition of No-Confidence

motion was served by affixing in the presence of her father-in-law and

by recording panchnama of the service by way of affixing. Hence, it is

not open for the petitioner to submit that she was deprived of her right

to speak.

17. Learned counsel for the members thus submitted that once the

majority of the members have unanimously held that they have lost

their faith in their Sarpanch, it is appropriate that the petitioner walk

away from the post of Sarpanch and not insist on continuing on the

said post when the members have lost faith in her. Learned counsel for

the members thus submits that this is not a fit case to exercise powers

under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India.

PETITIONER'S RESPONSE TO THE MEMBERS' SUBMISSIONS :

18. In response to the submissions made by the learned counsel for

the members, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if it

was the case of the members that the petitioner continuously remained

absent, it was always open for them to invoke Section 40 of the said

901-WP-13629-2023.docx

Act. However, no such action was taken against the petitioner. He

submitted that knowing fully well that the petitioner had applied for

leave to remain absent till 20 th March 2023, the members deliberately,

with malafide intention, moved the requisition within two days from the

petitioner's application for leave of absence. Learned counsel for the

petitioner thus submitted that the aforesaid decisions take the view

that the allegation in the requisition need not be proved as this is

beyond the scope of Section 35. However, once the petitioner's right

to speak is breached by not following the said Rules, there is a breach

of the provisions of the said Act and said Rules.

19. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that

conducting a meeting within seven days from the date of requisition as

provided in sub-section (2) of Section 35 is not a mandatory Rule, and

thus, it was always open for the learned Tahsildar to adjourn the

meeting to the immediately next day of the petitioner's date of

absence.

20. Learned counsel for the petitioner thus submitted that once the

remedy to invoke Section 40 was available on the allegation of the

petitioner's absence, the requisition moved for a No-Confidence

901-WP-13629-2023.docx

motion deliberately when the petitioner was away from the Gram

Panchayat shows the malafide intentions of the members of the Gram

Panchayat to deprive the petitioner of her right to speak. Learned

counsel for the petitioner thus submitted that since there is a breach of

the mandatory provision under the said Act and the said Rules, this is

a fit case to exercise powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India.

ANALYSIS:

21. I have considered the rival submissions. Perused the papers.

Before examining the rival contentions of the parties, it is necessary to

refer to the relevant provisions of the said Act and the said Rules.

Section 35 of the said Act provides for moving a No-Confidence motion

against the Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch after giving such notice by not

less than two third of the total number of members to the Tahsildar.

Sub-Section (2) of Section 35 provides that within seven days from the

date of receipt of the notice under sub-section (1), the Tahsildar shall

convene a special meeting of the Gram Panchayat for considering the

motion of No-Confidence and he shall preside over such meeting.

Sub-Section (2) further provides that at such special meeting, the

901-WP-13629-2023.docx

Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch against whom the motion of No-

Confidence is moved shall have the right to speak or otherwise take

part in the proceedings at the meeting, including the right to vote.

Thus, sub-section (2) indicates that the learned Tahsildar is under

obligation to convene the meeting within seven days of the date of

notice received by him. However, sub-section (2) also gives the right to

speak to the Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch against whom the motion is

moved. Rule (2) of the said Rules provides for the mode of service of

the notice under Section 35(1) of the said Act and requisition moved by

the members.

22. This Court, in the decision Yamunabai Chavan, held that the

provision of sub-rule 2 of Rule 2 of the said rules is directory in nature.

This Court, in the decision of Yamunabai Chavan, held that the motion

of No-Confidence is not akin to disciplinary proceedings or a provision

for removal for misconduct and that it does not partake of a punitive

character nor is it based on charges of misconduct which have to be

proved. However, it is held that a motion of No-Confidence is the

fundamental expression of the collective will of the members of a

legislative body that they lack confidence in one of their own members.

Thus, it is held that the contention that the right to speak at the

901-WP-13629-2023.docx

meeting given to Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch requires that the

requisition which has been moved be furnished to them cannot be

acceded to. However, it is also held that the person against whom the

motion is moved is entitled to the right to speak in the meeting. This

Court, by relying upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court

held in paragraph 10 as under:

"10. There are two decisions of Division Benches of this Court, to which a reference must be made in the course of this judgment. The first is a judgment of a Division Bench consisting of Paranjape and B.D.Bal, JJ. In Smt. Annapurnabai Ajabrao v. Smt Annapurnabai Anandrao, 1967 Mh.LJ 36 (NOC) and it expounds upon the essence of a motion of no confidence :

"Even (a) Gram Panchayat is essentially a democratic institution which must be run on democratic principles. When the majority of the members have clearly expressed that they do not desire the petitioner to be their leader and Sarpanch, the proper attitude of the petitioner as a person working for democracy would have been to tender her resignation straightway. At any rate, it does not behove of a democratic spirit to challenge the decision of the majority who unmistakably declared their want of confidence in their erstwhile leader. Democratic principles as also the sense of

901-WP-13629-2023.docx

self-respect should have impelled the petitioner and persons situated in similar circumstances to gracefully submit to the decision of the majority and to walk out of the Gram Panchayat instead of raising frivolous contentions and forcing herself on the democratic institution which does not want her to hold that position."

This Court thus held that once a No-Confidence motion is moved by a

majority of the members, it cannot be interfered with on technical

grounds.

23. This Court, in the case of Nimba Rajaram Mali, held that giving

details of the reasons in the notice is not a pre-requisite of Rule 2. This

Court held that in a democratic society, the will of the majority is

important, and the elected representative must honour it. Thus, it was

held that it was immaterial to analyse and debate the reasons behind

the will of the majority of the specific reasons for such will being

expressed.

24. This Court thus held that once the resolution of No-Confidence is

passed by a clear majority and in keeping with the requirement of the

concerned statutory provisions, the person against whom the said

resolution is passed must honour the will of the majority and make way

901-WP-13629-2023.docx

for the new election of his successor unless it is shown that while

passing such a resolution of No-Confidence there was violation of any

mandatory procedure laid down, such a resolution cannot be interfered

with by the Court or Statutory Authorities adjudicating such a dispute.

25. By keeping in mind the aforesaid legal principles, it is necessary

to analyse the submissions made by both parties in view of the facts of

the present case. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the

petitioner remained absent from the meeting of the Gram Panchayat

from October 2022. The petitioner's application for seeking a leave of

absence was allowed from 23rd December 2022 to 6th January 2023.

However, the petitioner had filed another application for leave of

absence from 24th February 2023 to 20 th March 2023. Though it is

sought to be contended on behalf of the petitioner that she had applied

for leave of absence on the grounds of the medical treatment of her

son, it is not disputed that the petitioner did remain absent from the

meetings of the Gram Panchayat. The petitioner's application for

remaining absent from 24th February 2023 to 20th March 2023 was not

approved by the Gram Panchayat in the meeting held on 25 th February

2023. The petitioner was informed about the said meeting on 27 th

February 2023. On the same day, she was also served with the notice

901-WP-13629-2023.docx

under Section 35 (1) of the said Act informing her that a meeting shall

be held on 3rd March 2023 to decide the requisition for the No-

Confidence motion. Thus, on 27 th February 2023, the petitioner was

made aware of the meeting to be held on 3 rd March 2023. She was

also aware that her application for a leave of absence was not

approved by the Gram Panchayat. Thus, it cannot be said that the

petitioner was not intimated well in advance that the meeting for the

motion for No-Confidence against her was scheduled on 3 rd March

2023. Thus, if the petitioner wanted to exercise her right under sub-

section (2) of Section 35 and speak in the meeting, she had an

opportunity to attend the meeting by physically remaining present.

26. Sub-Section (2) of Section 35 mandates holding a meeting within

seven days by the Tahsildar from the date of receipt of notice under

Sub-Section (1). Hence, it was obligatory on the part of the Tahsildar

to hold a meeting within seven days of the date of receipt of the notice

under sub-section (1) of Section 35. Though sub-section (2) of

Section 35 provides for a right to speak to the Sarpanch or Upa-

Sarpanch in the meeting for considering a motion of No-Confidence,

the same provision also makes it mandatory for the learned Tahsildar

to hold the meeting within seven days of the receipt of the notice.

901-WP-13629-2023.docx

Thus, a complete reading of sub-section (2) of Section 35 of the said

Act indicates that the meeting has to be held within seven days of the

date of notice. Accordingly, in the present case the learned Tahsildar

conducted the meeting on 3rd March 2023 on the notice received by

him on 27th February 2023.

27. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, in the decision of

Dnyandev Nipunage observed that once a meeting of the Gram

Panchayat or any other local authority is called, then if there is coram

to conduct the business of the meeting, then the meeting has to take

place. It is further observed that there is no provision under any law

applicable to Gram Panchayat that such a meeting can be adjourned

only because a member or two requests that the meeting be

adjourned. Thus, it is held that when even general meetings are not

adjourned on the request of any member, then the position of special

meetings has to be stricter, and the meeting called for consideration

for a No-Confidence Motion has to be conducted, and the motion must

be put for discussion. Thus, in the present case, I do not find any

substance in the arguments made by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that the meeting should have been postponed due to the

non-availability of the petitioner.

901-WP-13629-2023.docx

28. Admittedly, on 3rd March 2023, the petitioner remained absent.

However, she chose to submit a written submission through her father-

in-law. Thus, it cannot be said that she did not exercise her right under

sub-section (2) of Section 35. A careful reading of sub-section (2) of

Section 35 of the said Act indicates that the Sarpanch and Upa-

Sarpanch have the right to speak in the meeting or otherwise take part

in the proceedings at the meeting, including the right to vote. Thus, a

careful reading of sub-section (2) of Section 35 would indicate that it is

obligatory on the part of the Tahsildar to conduct the meeting within

seven days of the receipt of the notice; however, there are options

provided to the Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch to exercise the right to

speak by remaining present or otherwise take part in the proceeding,

including the right to vote. Thus, in the present case, the petitioner

chose to remain absent and did not exercise her right to speak;

however, she expressed her views by submitting written submissions

through her father-in-law. The petitioner may have her own reasons for

not being able to attend the meeting. However, considering the well-

established legal principles in the decision of Yamuna Chavan, it is not

necessary to examine the reasons behind the petitioner's absence. In

view of the legal principles settled in the decision of Yamuna Chavan,

901-WP-13629-2023.docx

explaining the nature and scope of a No-Confidence Motion, I do not

find any substance in the arguments raised by the learned counsel for

the petitioner by relying upon the provision of Section 40 of the said

Act, in as much as the scope of the said provision dealing with

absence of a member of Panchayat cannot be equated with the motion

of No-Confidence against a Sarpanch or Upa Sarpanch.

29. In view of the aforesaid facts, the legal principles laid down by

this Court in Yamunabai Chavan and Nimba Rajaram Mali squarely

apply to the present case, to mean that once a resolution of No-

Confidence is passed by a clear majority, the petitioner against whom

such a resolution is passed must honour the will of the majority and

make way for the new election of her successor. Thus, the legal

principles laid down in the said decisions squarely apply to the present

case.

30. The well-established principles of law regarding the scope of

interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are

summarised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shalini

Shyam Shetty and Another Vs Rajendra Shankar Patil 4. The relevant

extracts from paragraph 49 are as follows:

(2010) 8 SCC 329

901-WP-13629-2023.docx

"49. On an analysis of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the following principles on the exercise of High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution may be formulated:

(e) According to the ratio in Waryam Singh [AIR 1954 SC 215], followed in subsequent cases, the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction of superintendence can interfere in order only to keep the tribunals and courts subordinate to it, "within the bounds of their authority".

(f) In order to ensure that law is followed by such tribunals and courts by exercising jurisdiction which is vested in them and by not declining to exercise the jurisdiction which is vested in them.

            (g)      Apart from the situations pointed in (e) and (f), High
            Court      can      interfere   in   exercise     of   its    power       of

superintendence when there has been a patent perversity in the orders of the tribunals and courts subordinate to it or where there has been a gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted.

(h) In exercise of its power of superintendence High Court cannot interfere to correct mere errors of law or fact or just because another view than the one taken by the tribunals or courts subordinate to it, is a possible view. In other words the jurisdiction has to be very sparingly exercised."

emphasis applied

31. In the present case, I do not find any breach of any mandatory

901-WP-13629-2023.docx

provisions of the said Act, or the said Rules. There is no error or

infirmity in the impugned order dismissing the petitioner's appeal.

Hence, this is not a fit case to exercise powers under Articles 226 or

227 of the Constitution of India. Thus, for the reasons stated above,

the petition is dismissed.

[GAURI GODSE, J.]

Digitally signed by RAJESHWARI RAJESHWARI RAMESH RAMESH PILLAI PILLAI Date: