Kerala High Court
Rajagopalan Pillai vs State Of Kerala on 18 July, 2025
2025:KER:53386
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 27TH ASHADHA, 1947
OP(CRL.) NO.455 OF 2025
IN MC NO.34 OF 2022 OF GRAMA NYAYALAYA, CHAVARA,
KOLLAM.
PETITIONER/1st RESPONDENT IN MC:
RAJAGOPALAN PILLAI
AGED 54 YEARS, S/O P.GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI
KUTTIKKATTU MELATHIL VEEDU, MARUTHAMANPALLY,
POOYAPPALLY.P.O, KOLLAM, KERALA, PIN 691 537
BY ADVS.
SHRI.MURALI MADANTHACODU
SMT.GREESHMA M.M.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT KERALA,ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 RAJITHA
W/O RAJAGOPALAN PILLAI,
CHANGADATHU PADINJATTATHIL,
MUKUNDAPURAM.P.O, KOLLAM, PIN - 691585
3 RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI
S/O GOPLAKRISHNA PILLAI
NOW RESIDING AT AMBADI MARUTHAMANPALLI,
POOYAPPALLI P.O KOLLAM, PIN - 691537
BY ADV.
SRI.G.SUDHEER - PP
THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
18.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:53386
OP(Crl.) No.455 of 2025
-2-
G. GIRISH, J.
-----------------------------
OP(Crl.) No.455 of 2025
------------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
Ext.P1 - order passed by the Grama Nyayalaya, Chavara, in
CMP No.139 of 2022 in M.C.No.34 of 2022 is under challenge in this
petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The
aforesaid order was passed in a petition filed by the respondent
under Section 23 of the PWDV Act. It is seen from the impugned
order that, though the petitioner herein had filed objection, the
learned counsel for the petitioner did not care to advance arguments
before the Trial Court. Under such circumstances, the learned
Nyayadhikari has proceeded with the matter and passed the
impugned order on 03.05.2025.
2. Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that the aforesaid
order has been passed without hearing him. It is stated that the
counsel for the petitioner did not care to argue the case, and hence
the petitioner has opted for changing the counsel. Be that as it may,
the order passed by the learned Nyayadhikari under Section 23 of
2025:KER:53386
the PWDV Act is appealable under Section 29 of the said Act.
Therefore, the proper remedy available for the petitioner against the
impugned order is to file an appeal.
3. In Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, (2009) 5 SCC 616,
the Apex Court has held that the powers under Article 227 can be exercised
only in those cases where there is manifest miscarriage of justice, and that
the said power is not meant to correct a mistake of fact and law. The
relevant paragraph of the said decision is extracted hereunder:
"31. Under Article 227 of the 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 of
their authority. Under Article 227, orders of both civil and criminal courts
can be examined only in very exceptional cases when manifest
miscarriage of justice has been occasioned. Such power, however, is not
to be exercised to correct a mistake of fact and of law."
4. Elucidating the scope and applicability of Article 227, a five
judges bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court held in Rajendra Diwan v.
Pradeep Kumar Ranibala, (2019) 20 SCC 143, as follows:
"85. The power of superintendence conferred by Article 227 is,
however, supervisory and not appellate. It is settled law that this power
of judicial superintendence must be exercised sparingly, to keep
subordinate courts and tribunals within the limits of their authority.
2025:KER:53386
When a Tribunal has acted within its jurisdiction, the High Court does
not interfere in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction unless there
is grave miscarriage of justice or flagrant violation of law. Jurisdiction
under Article 227 cannot be exercised "in the cloak of an appeal in
disguise".
86. In exercise of its extraordinary power of superintendence
and/or judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India, the High Courts restrict interference to cases of patent error of
law which go to the root of the decision; perversity; arbitrariness and/or
unreasonableness; violation of principles of natural justice, lack of
jurisdiction and usurpation of powers. The High Court does not
re-assess or re-analyse the evidence and/or materials on record.
Whether the High Court would exercise its writ jurisdiction to test a
decision of the Rent Control Tribunal would depend on the facts and
circumstances of the case. The writ jurisdiction of the High Court
cannot be converted into an alternative appellate forum, just because
there is no other provision of appeal in the eye of the law."
5. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the
aforesaid decisions, the present original petition filed under Article
227 of the Constitution of India, cannot be entertained.
Accordingly, the original petition is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
G. GIRISH
JUDGE
ded/18.07.2025
2025:KER:53386
APPENDIX OF OP(CRL.) 455/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMP IN MC
NO:34/2022 IN 139/2022 OF THE GRAMA
NYAYALAYA,CHAVARA DATED 03/05/2025
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE EX-PARTE INTERIM ORDER IN CMP
139/2022 IN MC NO:34/2022 OF THE GRAMA
NYAYALAYA,CHAVARA, DATED 20/08/2022
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT OF STATE
BANK OF INDIA, POOYAPPALLY BRANCH DATED
10/06/2025
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT TOGETHER WITH THE CAR OF THE HOUSE
OWNER, WHERE SHE IS WORKING, DATED NIL
