AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. (Oral)
The petitioner filed a petition under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for the ejectment of Mool Chand etc. This petition was dismissed by the Rent Controller vide order dated May 9, 1977. The petitioner having failed before the appellate Authority has thus approached this Court through Civil Revision No. 1690 of 1979. The learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the Revision Petition vide orders dated April 17, 1987. The petitioner then filed a C.M. application No. 2440CII of 1987 praying that revision petition No. 1690 of 1979 may kindly be readmitted and be fixed for early and actual hearing and be decided on merits. This application was dismissed by the learned Judge on may 13, 1987.
The petitioner did not challenge the order of the learned Single Judge by way of Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. However, he filed the present petition in this Court and has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated April 17, 1987 be issued. Initially the Motion Bench vide order dated July 16, 1987 dismissed this petition. Aggrieved by the order of the Motion Bench, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court through Special Leave Petition No. 10103 of 1987. Vide order dated December 7, 1987, their Lordships granted Special Leave and set aside the order of this Court with the following observations :
"In this case, we have some doubt as to whether the appellant has really suffered any grievance. Be that as it may be in order to do justice as the appellant states that he had given a limited vakalat to his advocate without entering into the controversy the ends of justice will be served by setting aside the order of the High Court and give him an opportunity of hearing. Notice of hearing should be given to both the parties. We request the High Court to dispose of the matter as early as possible. The Civil Appeal is allowed accordingly."
A photostat copy of the certified order issued by the Joint. Registrar of the Supreme Court is also on the file of this case. This reads as under :
"The appeal abovementioned being called on for hearing before this Court on the 7th day of December 1987. Upon perusing the record and hearing the appellant in person and counsel for respondent No. 3, this court doth in allowing the appeal order:
That the Order dated the 16th July, 1987, of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, in Civil Writ No. 4135 of 1987 be and is hereby set aside and the matter be and is hereby remanded to the aforesaid High Court with the direction that the said High Court do restore to its file Civil Writ No. 4135 of 1987 and do dispose it of as early as possible after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant herein;
That the notice of hearing shall be given to both the parties;
and this court both further order that this order be punctually observed and carried into evocation by all concerned.
Witness the Hon''ble Shri Raghunandan Swarup Pathak, Chief Justice of India at the Supreme Court, New Delhi, dated this the 7th day of December, 1987."
On the basis of the above orders, the petitioner appearing in person submits that their Lordships of the Supreme Court have set aside the order dated April 17,1987 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Revision No. 1690 of 1979. When the matter came up before me on January 17, 1992, I had my reservations regarding the correctness of the petitioner''s statement. I was also doubtful if a writ petition challenging an order passed in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court was competent. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned to enable the petitioner to study the case. When the case came up for hearing on February 10, 1992, the petitioner sought an opportunity to file written submissions. The opportunity was granted and on February 24, 1992, the petitioner filed the written submissions. A copy thereof has also been furnished to the learned counsel for the respondents. I have now heard the petitioner as also the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. No one has appeared on behalf of the High Court, which has been impleaded as respondent No. 1. I have also perused the written submissions made by the petitioner.
In the written submissions filed by the petitioner, he has primarily dialated upon the validity of the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Revision No. 1690 of 1979. So far as this aspect of the matter is concerned, the Civil Revision Petition, in my view had been decided by the learned single judge on April 17, 1987. Even the application for the review of the order had been dismissed. I cannot, under any provision of law, go into the matter afresh. The only remedy available to the petitioner was by way of filing a petition before their Lordships of the Supreme Court. Probably out of ignorance, the petitioner never resorted to such a remedy. Having failed to resort to the appropriate remedy, the judgment passed by this Court has become final and cannot be reviewed in the present proceedings.
I am also of the opinion that no writ petition challenging the order passed by a Judge of this Court in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under the relevant Act is competent. Article 226 of the Constitution undoubtedly authorises the High Court to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to "any person or authority. It is undoubtedly correct that this Court in the exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution can set aside even an order passed by the Full Court on the Administrative side. A writ can thus be issued in such a situation. However, an order passed by the High Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction cannot be set aside by the issue of a writ of certiorari etc. In the written submissions filed by the petitioner, he has stated that the Court had failed to perform its duty of giving fair and impartial justice to him. He submits that the judgment is based on irrelevant and inadmissible evidence. On this premises, the petitioner contends that his petition is competent. I am of the considered view that it is not open to me to go behind the order in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is not competent.
The petitioner submits that in terms of the order of the Supreme Court, the order dated April 17,1987 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Revision No. 1690 of 1979 has been set aside. I cannot read the order of their Lordships to mean that.
Before parting with the judgment, it may be noticed that when this matter had been originally listed for hearing the petitioner had submitted that this writ petition had to be heard along with Civil Revision No. 1690 of 1979. Accordingly, vide my order dated November listed 12, 1991, I had ordered that the writ petition be, along with Civil Revision No. 1690 of 1979.
The office had reported that the revision petition had already been decided. The petitioner had contended that this order had been set aside by the Supreme Court vide order dated December 7, 1987. This position was not disputed by Mr. Ashish Handa, who had appeared for the respondents at that time. Accordingly, I had directed that the Civil Revision Petition be listed alongwith this Petition. Today Mr. Handa has clarified that by order dated December 7, 1987, their Lordships of the Supreme Court had only set aside the order passed in the writ petition and not in Civil Revision. He appears to be right.
Accordingly, I find no merit in this petition. It is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, I made no order as to costs.