Bhagwan Lal vs Dy.Director Of Agriculture,
2021 Latest Caselaw 2475 MP

                                      1                 RP.41.2010

              The High Court of Madhya Pradesh
                            RP.41.2010
                      Bhagwan Lal & Ors.
                                Vs.
                The Dy. Director of Agriculture,
            Agriculture Department, Morena & Anr.
Gwalior dated 17.06.2021

      Shri Alok Katare, learned counsel for the petitioners.

      Shri Ankur Mody, learned Additional Advocate General for

respondent/State.

Heard through video conferencing.

1. This petition seeks review of the final order passed by the

co-ordinate Bench on 16.12.2009 in WA.591/2007 whereby the

writ appeal was dismissed as not maintainable by holding that

since the order of learned Single was passed u/Art.227 of the

Constitution, statutory bar contained in Sec.2 of Madhya Pradesh

Uccha Nayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam,

2005 comes in way.

2. Learned counsel for review petitioners has relied upon

subsequent decision of this Court rendered in the case of

"Shailendra Kumar Vs. Divisional Forest Officer and another

[2017(4) MPLJ 109]" and some other decisions of this Court and

as well as of Apex Court to emphasize the point that the consistent

view taken by all the superior courts as regards entertainability of

an intra-court appeal against an order passed in a petition assailing

the award of the Labour Court is that an intra-court appeal is

maintainable since the jurisdiction exercised by the Single Bench 2 RP.41.2010

is not only u/Art.227 but also u/Art.226 of the Constitution.

Learned counsel has also relied upon a Division Bench decision

of Apex Court rendered on 05.12.2008 in the case of State of

M.P. & Ors. Vs. Visan Kumar Shivcharan Lal, A-1, along with

list of documents to emphasize that even the Apex Court before

pronouncement of the order under review had repeatedly taken

view that distinguishing line between Art.226 and 227 has become

blurred, which is evident from the following paragraphs contained

in "Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai & Ors. [AIR 2003

SC 3044]" relied upon in Visan Kumar Shivcharan Lal (supra):

"19. Thus, there is no manner of doubt that the orders and proceedings of a judicial court subordinate to High Court are amenable to writ jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

"25. Upon a review of decided cases and a survey of the occasions wherein the High Courts have exercised jurisdiction to command a writ of certiorari or to exercise supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 in the given facts and circumstances in a variety of cases, it seems that the distinction between the two jurisdictions stands almost obliterated in practice. Probably, this is the reason why it has become customary with the lawyers labeling their petitions as one common under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, though such practice has been deprecated in some judicial pronouncement. Without entering into niceties and technicality of the subject, we venture to state the broad general difference between the two jurisdictions. Firstly, the writ of certiorari is an exercise of its original jurisdiction by the High Court; exercise 3 RP.41.2010

of supervisory jurisdiction is not an original jurisdiction and in this sense it is akin to appellate revisional or corrective jurisdiction. Secondly, in a writ of certiorari, the record of the proceedings having been certified and sent up by the inferior court or tribunal to the High Court, the High Court if inclined to exercise its jurisdiction, may simply annul or quash the proceedings and then do no more. In exercise of supervisory jurisdiction the High Court may not only quash or set aside the impugned proceedings, judgment or order but it may also make such directions as the facts and circumstances of the case may warrant, may be by way of guiding the inferior court or tribunal as to the manner in which it would now proceed further or afresh as commended to or guided by the High Court. In appropriate cases the High Court, while exercising supervisory jurisdiction, may substitute such a decision of its own in place of the impugned decision, as the inferior court or tribunal should have made. Lastly, the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is capable of being exercised on a prayer made by or on behalf of the party aggrieved; the supervisory jurisdiction is capable of being exercised suo motu as well."

2.1 Thus, it is submitted by learned counsel for review

petitioners that this is not a case where judicial view has changed

after passing of order under review but the impugned order under

review was passed in ignorance of the law which was well settled

since much prior to the passing of order under review.

3. Pertinently, the order under review is passed after placing

reliance on the Apex Court decision in the case of "Ramesh 4 RP.41.2010

Chandra Sankla etc. V. Vikram Cement etc. [2008 AIR SCW

7923]" but ignoring the settled law of liberal entertainability of an

intra-court appeal against order of the Single Bench passed while

adjudicating a challenge to the award of Labour Court.

4. In view of above, the decision under review appears to be

erroneous but has been passed relying upon the Apex Court

decision and the view taken while passing the order under review

was one of the views which could have been taken since the law

on the point of entertainability of an intra-court appeal by treating

the order of the Single Bench to be passed u/Art.226 of the

Constitution was in a fluid state.

5. Thus, the view taken while passing the order under review

as one of the views possible in the given facts and circumstances

and therefore the order under review cannot be called as palpably

erroneous.

6. In the considered opinion of this Court, the remedy

available before the review petitioners is the higher forum.

7. Accordingly, present review petition stands dismissed

without cost.

                                                  (Sheel Nagu)                           (Anand Pathak)
                                                     Judge                                   Judge
                              pd

PAWAN
        Digitally signed by PAWAN
        DHARKAR
        DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
        MADHYA PRADESH BENCH



DHARK
        GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF
        MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
        GWALIOR, postalCode=474011,
        st=Madhya Pradesh,
        2.5.4.20=345b3604d572ed9dd1492



AR
        fe82dc3b1eef67eff2cb59f3ac97e92
        0ac264de7828, cn=PAWAN
        DHARKAR
        Date: 2021.06.23 11:10:26 +05'30'