Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1070 (MP)

Shri Suprabhat Chauksey v. State of M. P.

2012-10-17

BRIJ KISHORE DUBE, SHEEL NAGU

body2012
JUDGMENT : Sheel Nagu, J.:- This writ appeal filed under Section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uccha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam 2005 assails the final order dated 22.11. 2010 passed in W.P. No. 6019/2009 whereby while allowing the said petition the writ court has quashed the order dated 07/11/2009 of the State (Annexure P-1) by which allowing an appeal filed u/S. 40 of MP Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam 1973 (Adhiniyam for brevity) by quashing the order of the Registrar dated 19.06.2008 and remanding the matter to the Registrar for reconsideration of the issue concerned. 2. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard at length. 3. Since the issue involves a checkered history it would be apt to deal with the factual matrix of the case in chronological manner;- Date Events 12.01.2008 General body meeting of the society held and it is resolved that due to expiry of 3 years, of tenure of 'governing body, in January, 2008, fresh election be held for conduction of which request be made to Assistant Registrar Firm and Society Gwalior. 14.01.2008 R Request made to the Assistant Registrar Firms and Society for conductions of election on 25.01.2008 Assistant Registrar declined the said request contending that there is no enabling provision in the Adhiniyam. WP.Np.545/2008 Filed by Snit. Kailash Chouhan seeking direction from "the Court to Assistant Registrar to hold election as -the authority had declined to do so despite request made by the society in that regard. 31.01.2008 WPNo.454 2008 disposed of with direction to Assistant Registrar to proceed to conduct election in accordance with law within two months. 6.02.2008 One of the rival groups holds election wherein the previous president Kamlesh Chouhan is re-elected as executive member. WA.No.168/2008 (Filed on 13.03.08) Filed by Smt. Poonam Chouksey assailing the order dated 31.012008, primarily on the ground that the order dated 31.01.2008 in W.PNo. 454/2008 has been passed in ignorance of the relevant fact of election already having been held on 06.02.2008. WA.No.168/2008 (Filed on 13.03.08) Filed by Smt. Poonam Chouksey assailing the order dated 31.012008, primarily on the ground that the order dated 31.01.2008 in W.PNo. 454/2008 has been passed in ignorance of the relevant fact of election already having been held on 06.02.2008. 19.03.2008 W.A. No. 168/08 is disposed of by holding that cause of the election dated 06.02.2008 raised by the writ appellant is subsequent in point of time to order dated 31.01.2008 passed in W.P.No.454 2008 which is impugned in WA.No.168/08 and therefore, cannot form part of the process of adjudication in the writ appeal and thus, writ appeal was disposed of by observing that the order passed in the the writ appeal will not come in way of the authorities to consider the matter. 11.03.2008 Assistant Registrar pursuant to order dated 31.01.2008 in WP.No. 545/2008 publishes election programme after receipt of two lists of valid voter members one from Shri Ram Singh Dhakre and the other from Shri Suresh Kumar Chouksey 12.03.2008 A order of Assistant Registrar publishing provisional voter list of valid member voters for elections, and invites objections to the said provisional voter list till 19.03.2008. 19.03.2008 Final voter list is published after deleting the name of Suprabhat Chouksay. 29.03.2008 Election to the governing body of Society is held by the Assistant Registrar. Two Appeals are filed under Section 40 of the Adhiniyam. First against the order dated 19.03.2008 and the other against order dated 29.03.2008 before the Registrar. WP.No.1438/08 Filed assailing letter/order dated 11.03.2008 of Assistant Registrar notifying election as per direction in W.P.No. 545/2008 and also against the order dated 12.03.2008 of the Assistant Registrar summoning the list of members of the Society and inviting objections for finalization of the list of members for holding elections and also against the order dated 19.03.2008 publishing the final voter list. 27.03.2008 Single Bench of the High Court dismissed W.P.No.1438/2008 by holding that order dated 11.11.08 does not suffer from any legal infirmity as the election which took place on 06.02.2008 were held in absence of the Assistant Registrar and thus, contrary to the direction issued by the High Court in W.P.No. 545/08. Thus, the Single Bench of this Court while dismissing W.P.No.1438/2008 upheld the order dated 11.03.2008. WA.No.244/2008 Filed against the order dated 27.03.2008 in W.P.No.1438/2008. Thus, the Single Bench of this Court while dismissing W.P.No.1438/2008 upheld the order dated 11.03.2008. WA.No.244/2008 Filed against the order dated 27.03.2008 in W.P.No.1438/2008. 13.05.2008 The Division Bench of this Court disposed of W.A.No.244/2008 after holding that the present writ appeal deserves to be dismissed approving the findings of the Single Bench in W.P.No.1438/2008 that no error has been committed by Assistant Registrar in refusing to accept the elections held on 06.02.2008 as the said elections were held contrary to the direction of the High Court. Importantly, the Division Bench before parting made the following observation/directions:- "11. It appears from the arguments of the parties that there are two groups in the Society and each of them is not ready to accept other group. The members of one group are deleted from the voter list by other group and this is the main root of the dispute in the present case. Considering this fact, it is necessary for the Registrar to hear all the pending appeals relating to the functions of the Society within a period 30 days from passing of this order and decide the same in accordance with law. The Registrar will not influence with the orders passed by this Court from time to time and decide the matter strictly in accordance with law as per the 1973 Act, Rules framed thereunder and by laws of the Society. If the Registrar after hearing the parties come to the conclusion that the elections held by the Assistant Registrar are not in accordance with law.or illegal, then he may pass appropriate order accordingly and shall direct the Assistant Registrar to hold fresh elections within a period two months from the date of order. He will also ensure fairly that the society can function on democratic basis. 12. Resultantly, writ appeal stands disposed of with the aforesaid directions and observation without any order as to costs. An observation made by this Court or the Single Bench will not come in the way of the parties and the Assistant Registrar shall decide the appeal without being influenced of the orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition and Writ Appeal". 19.06.2008 The Registrar decides four (4) Appeals bearing no.17/2008 (Rajeev Gupta Vs. Assistant Registrar) and 18/08 (against order dated 19.03.2008 of the Assistant Registrar, Suprabhat Chouksay Vs. Assistant Registrar), 20/08 (Suprabhat Chouksay Vs. 19.06.2008 The Registrar decides four (4) Appeals bearing no.17/2008 (Rajeev Gupta Vs. Assistant Registrar) and 18/08 (against order dated 19.03.2008 of the Assistant Registrar, Suprabhat Chouksay Vs. Assistant Registrar), 20/08 (Suprabhat Chouksay Vs. Assistant Registrar) and 21/08 (against the order dated 29.03.2008 of Assistant Registrar, Jai Narayan Chouksay Vs. Assistant Registrar), by rejecting of the said appeals on the ground of failure of appellants to substantiate their contention due to non-availability of record except the appeal filed by Rajeev Gupta which was dismissed for want of prosecution. Second appeal is filed before State Government u/S. 40 of the Adhiniyam by Suprabhat Chouksay and Jainarain Chouksay Assailing the common order of Registrar dated 19.6.2008 7.11.2009 The second appeal by Suprabhat Chouksay and Jainarayan Chouksey is finally disposed of by setting aside the order of Registration dated 19.6. 2008 and remanding the matters reconsideration after inspection of the relevant records of the Society, after holding as follows:- (a) It appears that rival parties have failed to inform the High Court while it was deciding W.P. No. 545/08 that the request of the Society to the Assistant Registrar for holding elections on 06.2. 2008 had been declined on the ground of Assistant Registrar not having the powers to do so. (b) The Registrar before holding that no documents have been produced by the Appellants in support of their contentions ought to have first found out as to whether due diligence had been exercised towards production of records. W.P. No. 6019/09 Filed by Ram Singh Dhakre & 6 others assailing the order dated 7.01. 2009. W.P. No. 6165/09 Filed by the Society through Suresh Kumar Chouksey & 2 others assailing the order dated 07.11.2009. 22.11.2012 Impugned order passed by the Single Bench allowing W.P. No. 6019/09 while dismissing WP.No.6165/2009. 13.10.2011 WP No.7144/2011 filed by Jai Narayan Chouksey seeking direction to the Assistant Registrar to decide the representation dated 27.04.2011 filed under Section 32 for conduction of enquiry into the affairs of the Society. 25.11.2011 WP No.7144/2011 is disposed of finally with directions to the respondents to consider and decide the representation dated 27.04.2011 as expeditiously as possible. 12.12.2011 Review Petition No.331/2011 is filed by the Society and widow of Late Ram Singh Dhakre. 02.02.2012 Review Petition No.331/2011 is disposed of by holding that the order under review dated 25.11.2011 does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record. 4. 12.12.2011 Review Petition No.331/2011 is filed by the Society and widow of Late Ram Singh Dhakre. 02.02.2012 Review Petition No.331/2011 is disposed of by holding that the order under review dated 25.11.2011 does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record. 4. On the anvil of the abovesaid factual matrix, this Court is required to decide the legality, validity and propriety of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the order of the State Government dated 07.11.2009 has been quashed. 5. The State Government while passing the order dated 07.11.2009 in exercise of its powers under Section 40 of the M.P. Society Registrikaran Adhiniyamm, set aside the order of the Registrar dated 19.06.2008 and reminded the matter for reconsideration by the Registrar after perusal of relevant documents for adjudication of the dispute of the Society relating to the membership. 6. While arriving at the decision dated 07.11,2009, the State Government assigned the following two reasons :- (i) It appears that the High Court while passing the final order dated 31.01.2008 in WP No.545/2008 was not made aware of the fact that on the request of the Society in its letters dated 14.01.2008 and 18.01.2008 for conducting Elections under the supervision of Assistant Registrar, the said authority (Assistant Registrar) had declined the said request by its letter dated 25.01.2008 for the reason that the power to appoint an Election Officer for conduction of Election is vested not with the Assistant Registrar but with the Registrar/State Government. (ii) The Registrar before rejecting the appeals on the ground of want of record ought to have first recorded a finding that availability of record is not sufficient to decide the point involved in the matter despite exercise of due diligence. 7. On the other hand, a perusal of the order of Registrar dated 19.06.2008 reflects that the rejection of the appeals, apart from the appeal of Rajiv Gupta, which was rejected on the ground of want of prosecution, the reason assigned by the Registrar was failure of the appellants to produce the record in support of their claim. Thus, the Registrar in fact did not deal with the dispute about membership of the Society on merits and rejected the appeals for want of record. 8. Thus, the Registrar in fact did not deal with the dispute about membership of the Society on merits and rejected the appeals for want of record. 8. The earlier round of litigation, which commenced with filing of WP No.545/2008 and culminated in passing of the order dated 13.05.2008 in WA No.244/2008, resulted into the findings and direction rendered by the Division Bench forming the foundation for the Registrar to adjudicate and decide the appeal pending before it against different orders passed by the Assistant Registrar on 19.03.2008 (publication of final voters list after deleting the name of Suprabhat Chouksey) and the order dated 29.03.2008 (holding elections to the governing body of the-Society by the Assistant Registrar). Importantly, the Division Bench while deciding WA No.244/2008 upheld the order of the learned Single Judge passed on 20.07.2008 in WPNo.1438/2008, but to allow elbow-room to the Registrar to decide the appeals observed that the Registrar will not be influenced by the orders passed by this Court from time to time while deciding the appeals in accordance with law/rules and bye-laws of the Society. The Division Bench further held that in case the Registrar comes to the conclusion that Elections held by the Assistant Registrar on 29.03.2008 are not in accordance with law, then the Registrar is free to pass appropriate order directing the Assistant Registrar to hold fresh Elections so that the functioning of the Society is maintained on democratic principles. 9. The Registrar, as seen above, failed to decide the appeals on merits and by its order dated 19.06.2008 dismissed the appeals primarily on the ground of the appellants having failed to produce any records to substantiate their claim and that the orders under challenge in appeal, i.e., dated 12.03.2008 and 19.03.2008, were interim in nature not having any effect on the Elections conducted on 29.03.2008. 10. The finding recorded by the Registrar in its order dated 19.06.2008 that the orders dated 12.03.2008 and 19.03.2008, which was assailed in the appeals are interim in nature and, therefore did not have any effect on the Elections held on 29.03.2008, is erroneous. The Elections dated 29.03.2008 were based solely upon the final voters list published on 19.03.2008 and also the earlier exercise dated 12.03.2008 by which the objections were invited to the provisional voters list. The Elections dated 29.03.2008 were based solely upon the final voters list published on 19.03.2008 and also the earlier exercise dated 12.03.2008 by which the objections were invited to the provisional voters list. In case, the orders dated 12.03.2008 and 19.03.2008 were found by the Registrar to be bad, then the Elections held on 29.03.2008 would necessarily become ipso facto null and void. 11. The other reason assigned by the Registrar in its order dated 19.06.2008 of non-availability of records is further not tenable in view of ample powers vested in the Registrar under Sections 26 and 32 (3) (a) of the Adhiniyam to summon the record from the Society, which could have been exercised by the Registrar for deciding the dispute about membership, on merits. The Registrar not having done so, failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it. 12. In the background of the abovesaid dual reasons assigned by the Registrar, the State Government, while testing the validity, legality and propriety of the order of Registrar, remanded the matter for reconsideration after setting aside the order of the Registrar dated 19.06.2008 with the observations that relevant record should be examined before deciding the dispute of membership. 13. The reason assigned by the State in its order dated 07.11.2009 of non-availability of record and the failure of the Registrar to find out as to whether due diligence had been exercised by the appellant or the opposite party in producing the record before dismissing the appeal, cannot be said to be unreasonable. Every dispute deserves to be decided on merits, is a salutary principle deserving strict adherence while undertaking the exercise of adjudication by judicial or quasi-judicial authorities. Thus, the said reasons assigned by the State while setting aside the order of the Registrar of no availability of the record, cannot be found fault with. 14. So far as the other reason, assigned by the State that the High Court while deciding WP No.545/2008 having not been informed about the earlier decision of the Assistant Registrar of having declined the request of Society to hold Elections for want of jurisdiction, is concerned, this Court is of the considered view that this reason is irrelevant to the issue involved in the present matter. 15. 15. The State, in the very first place, had no authority to go behind the order of the High Court passed in WP No.545/2008 and to base its conclusion on a presumption which did not lie within its domain. By observing that the High Court was not informed of a certain factual situation while deciding WP No.545/2008, the State impliedly meant that if the factual situation as contained in para 5 (1) of order dated 07.11.2009 was known to the High Court, then the result of WP No.545/2008 could have been different. This attempt on the part of the State of doubting the correctness of the order passed in W.P.545/08 despite having failed to successfully assail the same, borders on contempt. 16. Learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order has primarily been persuaded to take the view for the following reasons :- (i) The order of the State Government dated 07.11.2009 was politically motivated as one of it's Ministers had recommended/directed in the note-sheet, while the appeals were pending before the State Government, that stay should be granted in favour of the appellants; and (ii) Testing the order of the Assistant Registrar and the Registrar dated 19.06.2008 on the anvil of the principle of proportionality, no fault could be found. (iii) The order of remand of the State Government dated 07.11.2009 was not in accordance with the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Lala Pancham and others reported in AIR 1965 SC 1008 whereby the Apex Court while adjudicating the order of remand in context of Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C. held that remand can not be for purpose of fresh trial, and since the State Government by its order dated 07.11.2009 without considering the merits remanded the matter to the Registrar for a fresh inquiry, the said order of the State Government is unsustainable. 17. 17. As regards, the ground of the order of the State Government dated 07.11.2009 being politically motivated is concerned, the record indicate that the Minister for Commerce, Industry and Employment, Information Technology, Science and Technology, Public Undertakings, Village Industry and Parliamentary Affairs on a note sheet directed for grant of stay till final decision in the appeal preferred against order dated 19.06.2008 of the Registrar and for issuance of order for the erstwhile undisputed Governing Body to manage and run the affairs of the society till the final decision in the appeal. Subsequently, it appears that when the said note sheet reached the Principal Secretary, Industries the said officer on 02.02.2009 (vide page 205 of the writ appeal) clarified the legal position by opining that the direction of the Minister can not be given effect to in view of the expiry of the term of three years of the erstwhile Governing Body/Managing Committee, specially when fresh elections have already been held on 29.3. 2008 by the Assistant Registrar pursuant to the directions of the High Court. The Principal Secretary further noted that since the Registrar has rejected all the appeals by order dated 19.06.2008, passing of any direction for grant of stay as directed by the Minister may not be appropriate. The Minister thereafter appears to have endorsed the above said opinion of the Principal Secretary, Industries which is evident from the signatures appended by the Minister immediately below (vide page 205 of WA) the noting of the Principal Secretary. The above said note sheet of the Principal Secretary dated 02.02.2009 clearly indicates that the element of political interference that may have existed due to the Minister having directed for grant of stay, evaporated after the said Minister concurred with the contrary opinion of the Principal Secretary Industries. Moreover, if the element of political interference would have categorically influenced the State Government, the State could have very well allowed the appeals on merits which it did not and rather adopted a reasonable approach of remand after finding that the record was not perused by the Registrar before rendering the order dated 19.06.2008. Therefore, it appears that the element of political interference did not have any effect on the decision making process of the State while passing the order dated 07.11.2008. 18. Therefore, it appears that the element of political interference did not have any effect on the decision making process of the State while passing the order dated 07.11.2008. 18. The second ground of passing the impugned order invoked by the learned Single Judge is the principle of proportionality by placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Chairman, All India Railway Recruitment Board and Another Vs. K.Shyam Kumar and Others reported in (2010) 6 SCC, 614. In the said decision, the Apex Court dealing with the fact situation where in the face of three alternatives held that in the given facts of circumstances the choice of one of the three alternatives, made by the appointing authority, right balance was struck and therefore, there was no need to interfere in the administrative decision taken by the appointing authority by applying the test of proportionality, for the obvious reason that the choice of the authority was a reasonable one which could have been taken by a man of ordinary prudence in the attending factual matrix with no occasion arising of breaking a nut with a sledge hammer. 19. Testing the factual matrix of the instant case on the anvil of the above said law laid down by the Apex Court concerning the principle of proportionality, It is noteworthy that the State while passing the order dated 07.11.2009 was not faced with several alternatives. The State was testing the legality and propriety of the order of the Registrar dated 19.06.2008 as an appellate authority exercising its power under Section 40 of the Adhiniyam and the three alternatives available to the State were either to take upon itself the adjudication of the dispute on merits or to remand the matter to the Registrar for doing so or to dismiss the appeals by upholding the order of Registrar. The State chose the second alternative of remanding the matter to the Registrar for hearing on merits after perusal of the record. The choice of the State of remanding the matter, was reasonable. The State chose the second alternative of remanding the matter to the Registrar for hearing on merits after perusal of the record. The choice of the State of remanding the matter, was reasonable. The Registrar admittedly without ensuring production of the record either of the parties or by exercising his statutory powers under Sections 26 or 32 (3) (a) of the Adhiniyam, dismissed the appeals, thereby rendering decision unsustainable while the State by passing the order dated 07.11.2009 intervened by ordering a remand to correct the mistake of the Registrar who had failed to exercise his jurisdiction vested in him, and therefore, no fault can be found with the order passed by the State especially when tested on the anvil of the judicial review under Article 226 of Constitution of India which was exercised by the writ Court while passing the impugned order. The power of judicial review can be, or rather ought to be exercised where the authority whose order is under challenge decides the matter without ensuring that the record is available and also without looking into the record. Thus, the order of the Registrar was obviously unlawful and the said illegality was set right by the State by remanding the matter for consideration. The fact of the State not deciding the matter at its own level on merits cannot be questioned, as the State was well within its powers under its appellate jurisdiction vested in it u/S. 40 of the Adhiniyam to either remand or to consider on merits, and the action of the State to chose the former alternative is unassailable, under Article 226 of Constitution of India. 20. The decision of the Apex Court referred to by learned Single Judge in the case of the Municipal Corporation Greater Bombay (supra) relates exclusively to Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC which relates to production of additional evidence before the Appellate Court. Importantly, the Order 41 Rule 27 CPC does not relate to remand and merely empowers the Appellate Court to allow production of additional evidence which could not be produced before the lower Court, for proper adjudication of the matter by the Appellate Court. Importantly, the Order 41 Rule 27 CPC does not relate to remand and merely empowers the Appellate Court to allow production of additional evidence which could not be produced before the lower Court, for proper adjudication of the matter by the Appellate Court. The Apex Court, in fact, while passing the judgment in the case of Municipal Corporation Greater Bombay (supra) set aside the order of the High Court by which fresh trial was directed after remitting the case to the Lower Court with direction to receive additional evidence. The Apex Court in this factual situation held that the High Court/Appellate Court was wrong in directing for fresh trial by remanding the case since such a course is not permissible under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. The Apex Court further found that the High Court while passing the impugned order had not proceeded under Order 41 Rule 25 CPC which in fact relates to remand by the Appellate Court when it comes to the conclusion that the lower Court had omitted to frame or try any issue or to determine any question of fact which appears essential to the right decision of the case upon merits. Thus, the case before the Apex Court was essentially under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and not under Order 41 Rule 23 or 25 CPC. Therefore, the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation Greater Bombay (supra) relates to Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and not in respect of Order 41 Rule 23 or 25 CPC and thus its precedential value is confined to Order 41, Rule 27 CPC. 21. It is noteworthy that the order of remand under Order 41 Rule 23 or 25 CPC can be passed only after the Appellate Court considers the matter on merits. The order of the State when tested on the anvil of the principle of remand enshrined in Order 41 Rule 23 or 25 CPC, reveals that the State in Para 5 has rendered its findings in Clause (1) (2) (3) of Para 5 of the order dated 07.11.2009, after noting the factual scenario attending the case and the submissions of the rival parties. From the reading of the findings rendered in para-5 (1) (2) (3) of the order dated 07.11.2009, it cannot be said that the State has not considered the merits of the matter. From the reading of the findings rendered in para-5 (1) (2) (3) of the order dated 07.11.2009, it cannot be said that the State has not considered the merits of the matter. The order for remand after quashing the order of the Registrar dated 19.6. 2008 has been passed by the State after considering the matter on merits, no matter how brief it may be. Thus, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation Greater Bombay (supra) which essentially relates to the power of Appellate Court under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and not to the power of remand under the Order 41 Rule 23 or 25 CPC, is not applicable to the instant case and, therefore, the reliance placed on the said decision of the Apex Court by the learned Single Judge is misplaced to that extent. 22. This Court will be failing in its duty, if the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent regarding the effect the Elections held in the year of 2011 has over, the outcome of this litigation, is not considered. It is stated at the Bar by the learned counsel for the respondents that fresh elections to the Managing Committee/Governing Body of the Society have again been held in the year 2011 after expiry of three years tenure since the last election was held in the year 2008 which is the subject matter herein. Admittedly, the present case relates to the election held in the year 2008 in terms of the directions passed by the Division Bench of this Court while deciding W.A. No. 244/08 on 13.5. 2008 whereby the Division Bench had while upholding the order of the Single Bench passed in W.P. No. 1438/08, extended liberty to the Registrar to decide the appeals pending before it with the observation that in case the Registrar after hearing the appeals comes to the conclusion that elections held by the Assistant Registrar are not in accordance with law or illegal then Registrar may pass appropriate orders by directing the Assistant Registrar to hold fresh elections within a period of two months from the date of order to ensure the functioning of the Society on democratic principles. 23. 23. It is undisputed that the said order of Division Bench dated 13.5.2008 passed in W.A. No. 244/08 has attained finality and has binding effect on all concerned, as none of the parties have assailed the said judgment. As the Division Bench afforded liberty to decide the appeals as well as to hold fresh election, accepting the objection of the election of the year 2011 having been held, would not only nullify the directions of Division Bench but would also be against the doctrine of lis pendens. Resultantly, this objection of respondents pales into insignificance 24. The learned counsel for the respondents has raised another objection of maintainability of this writ appeal by contending that since the order of the learned Single Judge is an order passed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, no writ appeal would lie in view of the bar contained in Section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uccha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam 2005. A perusal of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge indicates that W.P. No. 6019/09 was titled as petition under Article 226 of the Constitution India and primarily prayed for writ of mandamus or any other suitable writ including writ of certiorari for quashment of the order of State dated 07.11. 2009. Article 227 of Constitution of India does not relate to or empowers the High Court to issue any kind of writ but merely bestows the High Court with the power of superintendence over Subordinate Courts and Tribunals situated within its territorial jurisdiction. Further, the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order has quashed the order of the State dated 07.11. 2009 by issuing writ of certiorari while exercising original writ jurisdiction. Thus, by no stretch of imagination the impugned order of the learned Single Judge can be termed as an order passed under Article 227 of Constitution, thereby rendering the present writ appeal maintainable. 25. The decision of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Jaidev Siddha (DR.) and Others Vs. Thus, by no stretch of imagination the impugned order of the learned Single Judge can be termed as an order passed under Article 227 of Constitution, thereby rendering the present writ appeal maintainable. 25. The decision of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Jaidev Siddha (DR.) and Others Vs. Jaiprakash Siddha and others reported in 2007 (3) MPLJ 595 cited by the learned counsel for the respondents is of no avail to the petitioner since W.P. No. 6019/09 was a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, not only in form but also in substance without even an iota of suggestion of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution being sought to be invoked. 26. In view of the above said conspectus of facts and legal position, this Court is of the considered view that the order of the State dated 07.11. 2009 is sustainable while the impugned order of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P. No. 6019/2009 on 22.11.2010 is unsustainable. 27. Accordingly, this writ appeal deserves to be and is hereby allowed and the order of the learned Single Judge dated 22.11. 2010 passed in W.P. No. 6019/2009 is hereby setaside. 28. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.