Judgment :- 1. First respondent in Election (Original) Petition No.146 of 1996, on the file of Election Tribunal (District Judge), Chengalpattu, is the revision petitioner. First respondent herein filed the above petition to declare the election of the petitioner herein as Member of Ward No.16 of Kadambathur Panchayat Union, Chengai-M.G.R. District as void, illegal and inoperative, and also to declare the first respondent herein as the successful candidate in the Membership of Ward No.16, and for consequential reliefs. 2. I do not want to go into the facts of the case, since the matter now under consideration is with respect to I.A.No.199 of 1997, which was filed by the present petitioner to reject the election petition as not maintainable. In the affidavit filed in support of that I.A., she contended that Rule 12 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Election Rules, 1995 deals with election petitions. Under Rule 123, the election petition should be presented within 15 days from the date of publication of the result. Under Rule 123(2) every election petition shall be accompanied by as many copies as there are respondents mentioned in the election petition with three more additional copies, and the same to be attested either by the election petitioner or his counsel. It is also submitted that the annexures should be enclosed with each copy of the petition at time of presenting the election petition. Rule 123(2) is thus mandatory. It is stated that in the present case, the petitioner has not enclosed the annexures to the petition with each copy of the petition, and as such, the election petition presented by the election petitioner is not in compliance with Rule 123. The petitioner in that LA. has further stated that she was not served with copy of the petition through court, and on the representation of her counsel to court, a copy of the petition without enclosure was served on him in public court on 8.1.1996. It is said that she has also filed a petition for striking out the pleadings of the election petitioner wherein she has alleged that the copies of enclosures have not been filed in compliance of Rule 123. It is said that she has also filed a petition for striking out the pleadings of the election petitioner wherein she has alleged that the copies of enclosures have not been filed in compliance of Rule 123. According to her, in an attempt to cure the material defect of improper presentation of the election petition, her (election petitioners) counsel has attempted to furnish copies of enclosures on 5.3.1997, which has been refused by the counsel on the ground that there was no direction by the election court. For the reasons stated above, she prayed for rejection of the election petition. 3. A detailed counter was filed by first respondent wherein she said that required number of copies as described in the petition were presented and the same were also duly attested as required under law. It is further said that the other statutory requirements were also duly fulfilled. Only after a careful scrutiny of the election petition papers, the same was numbered and notice was ordered. It is said that after receiving notice, petitioner herein entered appearance through counsel and sought time for filing counter, and the matter was adjourned at their request. Learned counsel for petitioner requested her counsel to handover a copy of the petition, and instantly her counsel to handed over a copy from the bundle wherein it was stated as office copy. When an allegation was made that annexures were not handed over, respondents counsel again offered copies of annexures, but they were refused to be accepted. It is also contended that the documents filed along with the election petition are evidentiary in nature and they do not form the integral part of the petition. It is said that there is no ground to reject the election petition at this stage because it is ripe for evidence. 4. By the impugned order, the Tribunal rejected the application. It held that the election petitioner has pleaded in the main OEP., and, therefore, it cannot be said that the documents shown in the annexures are integral part of the main petition, and even if mere was non-supply of requisite copies and additional copies, that cannot be taken into consideration at this stage for dismissal of the election petition. It held that the election petitioner has pleaded in the main OEP., and, therefore, it cannot be said that the documents shown in the annexures are integral part of the main petition, and even if mere was non-supply of requisite copies and additional copies, that cannot be taken into consideration at this stage for dismissal of the election petition. The tribunal also held, following various decisions of the Supreme Court that the annexures are not integral part, but they are filed only to prove a fact and, therefore, the election petition cannot be dismissed at the thresh-old. 5. It is against the said order, the revision petition is filed under Art.227 of the Constitution of India. 6. It is the petitioner here in who moved an application before me election tribunal to reject the petition on certain grounds. The tribunal did not enter a finding in her favour. By her own showing, it is a matter which is within the jurisdiction of the tribunal. The question whether an election petition has to be dismissed at the threshold or not is a matter which is exclusively within the jurisdiction of that court (tribunal), and it has only held that at this stage it does not find any ground to reject the election petition. 7. Learned counsel for revision petitioner contended that me finding of the tribunal is not correct, and it goes against some of the decisions of the Supreme Court and also this Court. It is his case that the wordings in me Rules have been misinterpreted by the tribunal, and the mandatory provision has been considered as directory. This, according to the learned counsel, is sufficient for invoking the powers under Art.227 of the Constitution. In effect, what the learned counsel wanted was, a re-hearing of the of the entire matter by mis Court as if this is a Court of Appeal. 8. Durga Das Basu in ‘Shorter Constitution of India’, 12th Edition (1996), commenting on Art.227, at page 732, has said thus: “The power should not be exercised to correct an error of fact or of law, not being an ”error of law apparent on the face of the record’, of an ‘irregularity or illegality of procedure’, unless such error affects the jurisdiction, or involves a breach of the principles of natural justice or to reappraise the evidence“. Learned author has further said thus: ”Nor will the High Court, in exercise of this power, substitute its own judgment for that of the inferior court, Whether on a question of fact, or of law or interfere with the intra vires exercise of a discretionary power, unless it is ‘arbitrary or capricious’, or unless there was no evidence at all on “which the inferior court have come to the conclusion it did, or there was error of finding on a ‘jurisdictional fact’. 9. In an early decision of the Supreme Court reported in Rajkamal Kalamandir v. I.M.P.E. Union Rajkamal Kalamandir v. I.M.P.E. Union Rajkamal Kalamandir v. I.M.P.E. Union , (1965)1 S.C. W.R. 233 it was held thus: ”There can be no doubt that in exercising the jurisdiction under Art.227 the High Court cannot sit in appeal over the decision of a tribunal or me court which is brought before it and cannot upset its discretionary orders on the ground that if the matter has been raised before it, it might have exercised its discretion differently. It is clear that in reversing the order of the tribunal the High Court has in substance purported to exercise the appellate jurisdiction. Whether or not the award should be retrospective in its effect is a question that is usually to be determined by the tribunal in its discretion. Undoubtedly like all matters left to judicial discretion the question about the retrospective operation of the award must also be considered on reasonable “grounds but that is not to say that the matter is not one of discretion. Therefore in interfering with an order which was within the discretion of the Tribunal the High Court really purported to substitute its discretion for that of the Tribunal and that clearly is outside its jurisdiction under Art.227. The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in reversing the discretionary order passed by the Tribunal. The result is the appeal is allowed and the order passed by the High Court is set aside”. 10. In A. Narayani v. Kittan alias Krishnan, [1996] 2 K.L.J. 489 the Kerala High Court has considered this question. It was held thus: “…Its function is limited to seeing that the Subordinate Court or Tribunal functions within the limits of its authority. High Court may refuse to interfere under Art.227 unless there is grave miscarriage of justice. 10. In A. Narayani v. Kittan alias Krishnan, [1996] 2 K.L.J. 489 the Kerala High Court has considered this question. It was held thus: “…Its function is limited to seeing that the Subordinate Court or Tribunal functions within the limits of its authority. High Court may refuse to interfere under Art.227 unless there is grave miscarriage of justice. A mere wrong decision without anything more is not enough to attract the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art.227…” 11. In a very recent decision of the Gujarat High Court reported in Volume 38(1) Rupsinh P. Chauhan v. State of Gujarat [1997] 1 G.L.R. 5l6 in paragraph 8 of the judgment, a learned Judge has said thus: “…It is also a settled proposition of law that the jurisdictional sweep of this Court in a petition under Arts.226 and 227 of the Constitution is very much circumscribed. This Court cannot be converted into an appellate forum. The powers of this court under Arts.226 and227 are in the nature of supervisory. It may also be stated that it is not the decision, but the decision-making process which could be impugned in the writ petition…” 12. Learned counsel for rescission petitioner was not in a position to substantiate that there was any manifest injustice on the basis of the impugned order, nor was there any miscarriage of justice. Even if we accept the case of the petitioner that it is a wrong decision, that by itself will not confer a jurisdiction under Art.227 of the Constitution. By this statement, it should not be understood that the argument of learned counsel that the decision is wrong is upheld, for, I am not going into the merits of the case at this stage. The tribunal has only held that it does not find any reason to dismiss the election petition at this stage. The tribunal has exercised its jurisdiction properly, and there is no error of jurisdiction. Merely because it does not satisfy the petitioner, that may not be a ground for interference under Art.227 of the Constitution. The civil revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. C.M.P.No.11411 of 1997 for stay is also dismissed consequently.