Ascertaining the Extent of Revisionary Power of High Courts and Variables Involved

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd v. Dilbahar Singh

[Civil Appeal No.6177 OF 2004] Constitution Bench

At the outset it is clarified that the present judgment does not have any direct political or social relevance, however, it is significant since an important issue of law has been conclusively decided by a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court, and at the same time has crystallized the quagmire of legal precedents on this issue in one judgment.

I. Background of the Case and Issue

The case has been referred to resolve the conflict into the two

3-Judge Bench decisions one, Rukmini and the other, Ram Dass. Ram

Dass has followed Moti Ram. At the time of hearing of Civil Appeal

No.6177 of 2004, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh,

the 2-Judge Bench, while dealing with the meaning, ambit and scope of

the words “legality and propriety” under Section 15(6) of the Haryana

Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 was confronted with the question whether the High Court (as revisional authority) under Section 15(6) could interfere with the findings of fact of the first appellate Court/first appellate authority.

II. Submissions of the Counsel

While the appellant counsel relied on the judgment in Rukmini to contend that the revisional Court is not entitled to re-appreciate evidence, the respondent Counsel pressed into service the decision of this Court in Ram Dass wherein it has been held that the expression “legality and propriety” enables the revisional Court to

reappraise the evidence while considering the findings of the first appellate

Court.

III. Precedents concerning the Issue at hand [which in the present judgment are addressed/clarified]
The idea behind citing all these judgments is to inform the readers that on the issue at hand, the present judgment is from now on the sole conclusive and reliable authority, i.e., the need of citing any of these judgments is done away with.

(a) Rukmini Amma Saradamma v. Kallyani Sulochana and others; [(1993) 1 SCC 499]

(b) Ram Dass v. Ishwar Chander and others; [AIR 1988 SC 1422]

(c) Moti Ram v. Suraj Bhan and others; [AIR 1960 SC 655]

(d) Dattonpant Gopalvarao Devakate v. Vithalrao Maruthirao Janagaval; [(1975) 2 SCC 246]

(e) M/s. Sri Raja Lakshmi Dyeing Works and others v. Rangaswamy Chettiar; [(1980) 4 SCC 259]

(f) P.R Krishnamachari v. Lalitha Ammal; [1987 (Supp) SCC 250]

(g) H.V. Mathai v. Subordinate Judge, Kottayam; [(1969) 2 SCC 194]

(h) Rai Chand Jain v. Miss Chandra Kanta Khosla; [(1991) 1 SCC 422]

(i) Dr. D. Sankaranarayanan v. Punjab National Bank; [1995 Supp. (4) SCC 675]

(j) Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta; [(1999) 6 SCC 222]

(k) Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani and Ors.; [(1999) 1 SCC 141]

(l) M.S. Zahed v. K. Raghavan; [(1999) 1 SCC 439]

(m) Central Tobacco Company v. Chandra Prakash; [1969 UJ 432]

(n) Bhoolchand and Anr. v. Kay Pee Cee Investments and Anr.; [(1991) 1 SCC 343]

(o) Ubaiba v. Damodaran; [(1999) 5 SCC 645]

(p) T. Sivasubramaniam and Ors. v. Kasinath Pujari and Ors.; [(1999) 7 SCC 275]

(q) Ramdoss v. K. Thangavelu; [(2000) 2 SCC 135]

(r) Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. v. Govindas Purushothamdas and Anr.; [(2001) 3 SCC 445]

(s) V.M. Mohan v. Prabha Rajan Dwarka and Ors.; [(2006) 9 SCC 606]

(t) Olympic Industries v. Mulla Hussainy Bhai Mulla Akberally and Ors.; [(2009) 15 SCC 528]

IV. Provisions to be Interpreted

(a) Haryana Rent Control Act, Section 15- Appellate and revisional authorities: (6) The High Court as revisional authority, may at any time, on its own motion or on the application of any aggrieved party, made within a period of ninety days, call for and examine the record relating to any order passed or proceedings taken under this Act for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of such order or proceedings and may pass such order in relation thereto as it may deem fit. In computing the period of ninety days the time taken to obtain a certified copy of the order shall be excluded.

(b) Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act, Section 23- Appellate and Section 25- Revision: (1) The High Court may, on the application of any person aggrieved by an order of the Appellate Authority, call for and examine the record of the Appellate Authority, to satisfy itself as to the regularity of such proceeding or the correctness, legality or propriety of any decision or order passed therein and if, in any case, it appears to the High Court that any such decision or order should be modified, annulled, reversed or remitted for reconsideration, it may pass orders accordingly.

(c) Kerala Rent Control Act, Section 18- Appeal and Section 20- Revision: (1) In cases where the appellate authority empowered under section 18 is a Subordinate judge, the District Court, and in other cases the High Court, may, at any time, on the application of any aggrieved party, call for and examine the records relating to any order passed or proceedings taken under this Act by such authority for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality, regularity or propriety of such order or proceedings, and may pass such order in reference thereto as it thinks fit. 

Provision interpreted in Moti Ram case

(d) East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (3 of 1949), Section 15- Revision: (5)…The High Court may, at any time, on the application of any aggrieved party or on its own motion, call for and examine the records relating to any order passed or proceedings taken under this Act for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of such order or proceedings and may pass such order in relation thereto as it may deem fit.

In other words, all the provisions allow the Court in revisionary jurisdiction to satisfy itself of "Legality or propriety", with the sole major difference of Court's power to revise suo motu given in some provisions above.

V. Ratio

Va. Three Clarifications by the Court on the Issue

(a) Ordinarily, appellate jurisdiction involves a re-hearing while it is not so in the case of revisional jurisdiction when the same statute provides the remedy by way of an ‘appeal’ and so also of a ‘revision’. Generally, Revisional power is not and cannot be equated with the power of reconsideration of all questions of fact as a court of first appeal.

(b) Therefore, whenever there is usage of two expressions “appeal” and “revision” in one statute conferring appellate power and revisional power, for Interpretation purposes, such usage is not without purpose and significance.

(c) However, with respect to the extent of appellate or revisional jurisdiction, much would, however, depend on the language employed by the statute conferring appellate jurisdiction and revisional jurisdiction.

In other words, the Court recognized that revisional power is subject to well-known limitations inherent in all revisional jurisdictions and the matter essentially turns on the language of the statute investing the jurisdiction.

Vb. Decision on the Significance of the Expression 'legality' and 'propriety'

The Court clarified the observation in the case of Ram Dass, where it stated, 

"that jurisdiction enables the Court of revision, in appropriate cases, to examine the correctness of the findings of facts also...”.

and held that it only means that the power of revision vested in the High Court in the statute is wider than the power conferred on it under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is not confined to the jurisdictional error alone and in dealing with the findings of fact, the examination of findings of fact by the High Court is limited to satisfy itself that the decision is “according to law".

Vc. Ratio in the present case

The Court held that whenever words 'legality' or 'propriety' or 'regularity' are used, the High Court while dealing with the findings of fact, can examine the findings of fact to the limited extent of satisfying itself that the decision is “according to law".

"According to Law" means whether such finding of fact is based on some legal evidence or it suffers from any illegality like misreading of the evidence or overlooking and ignoring the material evidence altogether or suffers from perversity or any such illegality or such finding has resulted in gross miscarriage of justice. The said power is restricted in order to find out that the finding of facts are based on firm legal basis and are not given on a wrong premise of law. The word “propriety” does not confer power upon the High Court to re-appreciate evidence to come to a different conclusion.

In conclusion, Court reiterates that revisional power is not wide enough to make the High Court a second court of first appeal. The consideration or examination of the evidence by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction under these Acts is confined to find out that finding of facts recorded by the Court/Authority below is according to law and does not suffer from any error of law.