Art. 226 & 227 - Eviction order confirmed in High Court - Writ Petition seeking a direction to the Munsiff to keep in abeyance till the disposal of the Special Leave Petition is not proper - When clear remedies are available to the judgment debtor in appropriate cases, to seek the keeping in abeyance of the execution of the order for eviction , High court should not allow the judgment debtor to bypass all those provisions and pass orders staying the execution of orders or decrees validly passed or affirmed by the High court. High court cannot quash an order passed in revision. [Varghese vs Kausalya. 2002 (1) KLT SN 14 Page No.13 = 2001 (2) KLJ 904. Justice .P.K.Balasubramanyan & T.M.Hassan Pillai (JJ)]
Art.227 - When the dismissal of a commission application will lead to failure
of justice like in a case where the dispute is regarding identity, it could be
considered to be a case coming under the proviso to S.115 - High Court can also
invoke the jurisdiction under Art.227 if the Court below went wrong in refusing
to have the properties properly identified, in the interest of justice - Civil
P.C. 1908, S.115. [Nirmala V. Nandakumar, 2000 (1) KLT 843. P.K. Balasubramanyan (J)]
Administrative Tribunal - Jurisdiction of CAT - expunging of remarks in exercise of the power - not proper - Superior officers armed with their rich experience in the department are pre-eminently suited for reviewing those adverse comments - tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction in expunging the remarks. . [The Commissioner of Income Tax and others Vs. The Central Administrative Tribunal and another, 2002 (1) KLT 264, dated 4th December, 2001. (K.S.Radhakrishnan & K.Balakrishnan Nair (JJ)]
Constitution of India - Arts. 323-A & 323-B - Reasoning of the CAT they are not bound by the judgment of the single judge of the Kerala High Court , but they are bound by the later ruling of the Full Bench of the Tribunal is a wrong understanding of law - Cautioned the tribunal - " We may caution that the Tribunal would understand the limits of their jurisdiction and understand the legal position vis-a-vis a constitutional Court and avoid such reasoning in future......We express out strong resentment on the said reasoning. "[ T.M.Ranganathan vs Union of India. 2001 (2) KLT 662 = 2001 (2) KLJ 164 = ILR 2001 (3) Kerala 89. Dated 22nd June, 2001. .K.S.Radhakrishnan & G.Sasidharan (J&J)]
Interference with the orders - Supervisory power of the High Court - Court should certainly interfere when the reasoning of the lower authorities is perverse and is not susceptible to ordinary common sense - Economic criterion is not the guiding principle to deny a person the benefit of Scheduled Caste if he actually belongs to that caste. The remedy against the finding of scrutiny committee is a person under Art. 226. [ Haridasan vs State of Kerala. 2000 (2) KLT 913. Dr.AR.Lakshmanan & S.Sankarasubban (J&J)]
