Judgment :- Markandey Katju, CJ. This writ petition has been filed by the Service Bar Association which is an Association of lawyers practising before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act. 2. The prayer in this petition is a general prayer directing the respondents to withdraw all the cases pending in the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and to transfer them to this Court for decision by the High Court. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Advocate General. 4. The Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal was constituted under Section 4(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 on 12.12.1988 and we are informed that as on date about 34,000 cases are pending there. 5. We are informed that presently there is no Presiding Officer in the Tribunal and the State Government has sent a proposal to the Central Government for abolition of the Tribunal and the matter is pending with the Central Government. The position is therefore that while legally the Tribunal continues to exist, but factually it is non functional as there is no Presiding Officer or Member to hear the cases nor is the State Government interested in continuing the Tribunal. The result is that the cases of persons who filed petitions before the Tribunal cannot be heard and decided, and this is causing great hardship and suffering to the petitioners. 6. Citizens in this country have a right to get justice. However because of the non functioning of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, the cases of the petitioners in the Tribunal are not being heard and thus they are being deprived of justice. We are of the opinion that this is not fair to the petitioners as every one in this country has a right to go to court and ask for justice. 7. Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the High Court has the power of superintendence and this includes the power to transfer cases from one Court to another vide: 1. Mohamed Abdul Raoof and others vs. State of Hyderabad (A.I.R.(38) 1951 Hyderabad 50). 2. S.Srinivas Rao vs. High Court of Andhra Pradesh and others (AIR 1989 Andhra Pradesh 258). 3. Kanniammal and another vs. P. Narayanan and another (AIR 1989 Madras 350). 4. M/s. Ritz Hotels (Mysore) Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka and others (AIR 1985 Kant. 149). 5. Mohamed Abdul Raoof and others vs. State of Hyderabad (A.I.R.(38) 1951 Hyderabad 50). 2. S.Srinivas Rao vs. High Court of Andhra Pradesh and others (AIR 1989 Andhra Pradesh 258). 3. Kanniammal and another vs. P. Narayanan and another (AIR 1989 Madras 350). 4. M/s. Ritz Hotels (Mysore) Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka and others (AIR 1985 Kant. 149). 5. Mohamed Baquar Hussain Qureshi vs. The State of Hyderabad (AIR (38) 1951 Hyd. 82). 6. Maharaj Kumar Gajbir Singh and another vs. Maharaja Satbir Singh and others (AIR 1968 Punjab and Haryana 301). 7. Wali Mahammad vs. Manik Chandra Raul (AIR 1957 Calcutta 221). 8. Lalita Rajya Lakshmi and another vs. State of Bihar and another (AIR 1957 Patna 198). 9. Pyda Venkatanarayana and another vs. Thota Ramaswamy and others (AIR 1955 Andhra 40). 8. In Rajeshwari vs. United India Company (AIR 1984 Madras 170), this Court has held that even in the absence of any provision having been made in the Motor Vehicles Act for transfer of a case from one Tribunal to another, the High Court under Article 227 has power to transfer a case from one Tribunal to another. The same view has been followed by another Honourable Judge of this Court in Kanniammal and another vs. P. Narayanan and another (AIR 1989 Madras 350) where reliance has also been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Gurjarat vs. Vakhatsinghji ( AIR 1968 SC 1481 ). 9. No doubt, a learned single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Murugani Ramalingam vs. Kondapalli Gurumurthy Reddy (AIR 1955 AP 85) has held that the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to transfer cases from a court or Tribunal does not include the power to transfer a case to the High Court itself. The reasoning given by the learned single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court is that the power of the High Court to transfer a case to itself is contained in Article 228 exclusively and hence it cannot be said to be a power conferred by Article 227. We respectfully disagree with the view taken by the learned Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Article 228 does not any where say that that provision is an exclusive provision in the Constitution for transferring cases by the High Court to itself. We respectfully disagree with the view taken by the learned Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Article 228 does not any where say that that provision is an exclusive provision in the Constitution for transferring cases by the High Court to itself. In our opinion, Article 227 is wide enough to confer power to the High Court to transfer a case from a subordinate Court or a Tribunal to the High Court itself in certain exceptional and special situations where the interest of justice so requires. After all, justice has to be done, and if the High Court finds that justice is not being done due to some special situation, as is the case here, then certainly Article 227 is wide enough to give power to the High Court to ensure that justice is done by transferring the cases from a non functional Tribunal to the High Court itself so that justice may be done. 10. We hence hold that the power under Article 227 of the Constitution is wide enough to confer power to the High Court to transfer a case from a subordinate court or a Tribunal to the High Court itself in certain exceptional/special situations if the interest of justice so warrants as is the case here. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that we should direct that all the cases pending before the Tribunal should be transferred to this Court. We do not accept this contention because it is only if a petitioner before the Tribunal wants his case to be transferred to this Court then we can transfer it. If a petitioner does not want his case to be transferred to the High Court surely we cannot compel him to do so. Hence we dispose off this petition with a direction that if any of the petitioners who had filed a petition before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal wishes to get his case transferred, he may file a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution and in such eventuality, this Court will transfer that case from the file of the Tribunal to itself forthwith so that the matter can be disposed off expeditiously. We feel it necessary to issue this direction as we are informed that a large number of petitioners are suffering as their cases have not been heard by the Tribunal for a long period and many of them have become old and require immediate relief. The writ petition is accordingly disposed off. No costs.