STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. versus SAMAR KUMAR SARKAR

Citation: [2009] 10 S.C.R. 896 · Decided: 14-07-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 10 S.C.R. 896 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. 
"' 
A 
V. 
SAMAR KUMAR SARKAR 
(Civil Appeal No. 4350 of 2009) 
B 
JULY 14, 2009 
. 
[TARUN CHATIERJEE AND H.L. DATIU, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 227 - Power of High 
Court under - Transfer of an application pending before the 
c Administrative Tribunal by High Court to itself for 
consideration and decision, by exercising its power under 
Article 227 - Justification of - Held : Not justified - Power of 
interference is limited to seeing that the Tribunal functions 
within the limits of its authority - It is open to High Court to 
• 
D direct the tribunal to dispose of the matter expeditiously 
instead of transferring the matter to itself 
The question which arose for consideration was 
whether the High Court was justified in withdrawing the 
E application pending before the Administrative Tribunal for 
its consideration, by exercising its power under Article 
227 of the Constitution of India. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
F 
HELD : 1. Under Article 227 of the Constitution of 
India, the High Court has been given power of 
superintendence both in judicial as well as administrative 
matters over all Courts and Tribunals throughout the 
territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. It 
G is in order to indicate the plenitude of the power 
conferred upon the High Court with respect to Courts 
and the Tribunals of every kind that the Constitution 
conferred the power of superintendence on the High 
Court. The power of superintendence conferred upon the 
H 
896 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. v. SAMAR 
897 
KUMAR SARKAR 
;. 
High Court is not as extensive as the power conferred A 
upon it by Article 226 of the Constitution. 1 hus, ordinarily 
it is open to the High Court, in exercise of the power of 
superintendence only to consider whether there is an 
error of jurisdiction in the decision of the Court or the 
Tribunal subject to its superintendence. [Para 10] [903-F-
B 
H; 904-A] 
Thakur Jugal Kishore vs. Sitamarhi Central Cooperative 
Bank Ltd, (1967) 3 SLR 163; Gujarat v. Vakhatsinghji 
Vajesinghji Vaghela AIR 1968 SC 1481; Bathuttnal Raichand c 
Oswal v. Laxmibai R. Tarta (1975) 1 SCC 858; Special Cell, 
New Delhi vs. Navjot Sandhu (2003) 6 SCC 641; Umaji 
Keshao Rao Mesharam vs. Radhikabai, 1986 Supp. SCC 
401; Rao Shiva Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindya Pradesh 
(1956) 2 SCR 206, relied on. 
.• 
D 
2. The errors as to the interpretation of the 
Constitution is not out of the purview of Article 227 
although the High Court could not, under the powers 
conferred by this Article, withdraw a case to itself from a 
Tribunal and dispose of the same, or determine merely the E 
question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution 
arising before the Tribunal. Under Article 226, the power 
of interference may extend to quashing an impugned 
order on the ground of a mistake apparent on the face of 
the record. But under Article 227 of the Constitution, the 
F 
power of interference is limited to seeing that the Tribunal 
functions within the limits of its authority. [Paras 19 and 
20] [906-D-H] 
Thakur Jugal Kishore Sinha v. Sitamarhi Central Coop. 
Bank Ltd. (1967) 3 SCR 163; Nagendra Nath Bora v. 
G 
Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, AIR 1958 SC 
398, relied on. 
3. It would have been proper if the High Court in 
exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 had directed 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
898 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 10 S.C.R. 
the Tribunal to dispose of the matter expeditiously, 
instead of transferring the matter to itself. [Para 21) [907-
A] 
Case Law Reference : 
(1967) 3 SLR 163 
relied on 
Para 6 
AIR 1968 SC 1481 
relied on 
Para 11 
(1975) 1 sec 858 
relied on 
Para 12 
(2003) 6 sec 641 
relied on 
Para 13 
1986 Supp. sec 401 
relied on 
Para 15 
(1956) 2 SCR 206 
relied on 
Para 16 
(1967) 3 SCR 163 
relied on 
Para 19 
AIR 1958 SC 398 
relied on 
Para 20 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
4350 of 2009. 
E 
From the Judgment & Order dated 07.07.2008 of the High 
Court of Calcutta in W.P.S.T. No. 649 of 2007. 
Tara Chandra Sharma and Neelam Sharma for the 
Appellants. 
F 
Shravan Kumar, Neeraj Shekhar and Amit Kumar Singh 
G 
H 
for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H.L. DATTU, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. The petition raises an important question as to the 
power of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution 
of India to transfer an application filed under Section 19

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.