Power Under Article 227 Of Constitution To Be Used Sparingly, Cannot Be Used For 'Correcting Mere Errors': Jharkhand High Court Reiterates

While hearing a plea seeking exercising of power under Article 227 of Constitution and for passing interim orders till fresh orders are passed by the concerned court, the Jharkhand High Court reiterated that power under the provision is to be used sparingly and cannot be used to correct "mere errors".

In doing so the court further observed that if the power is used in this manner, then it will lead to accelerating the error committed. The high court was hearing a plea moved by the Union of India against Coal Bearing Tribunal's order issuing status quo in Adani's plea for restraining the Union from taking any coercive steps in view of the allegation that Adani did not seek the necessary approvals with regard to the Gondulpara Coal Block

A division bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Arun Kumar Rai in its October 3 order said, “Therefore, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case where the power is to be exercised under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by interfering with the order dated 03.08.2024, as such, we have interfered with the order, but the argument which has been advanced for passing interim order, this Court is of the view that no such direction can be passed by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India reason being that if such indulgence will be granted then the scope of Article 227 will be questioned and that will be in conflict with the power which is to be exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution since when the law has been laid down that the power under Article 227 of the Constitution is to be used sparingly and only for in appropriate cases for the purpose of keeping the subordinate courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors then passing of the interim order will lead to accelerating the error committed even though this Court has interfered with the impugned order by quashing it so that the learned court may remain within the bounds of their authority and not by correcting errors,” the Court concluded.

“If that is the imposition of law then once the error has been corrected by quashing the order dated 03.08.2024 and if in such circumstances, any indulgence will be passed by this Court by protecting the interest of the respondent in continuation of the order dated 03.08.2024, the same will lead to exceeding the jurisdiction by this Court in exercising the power under Article 227 of the Constitution.This Court, therefore, is of the view that no such indulgence can be granted in order to further the illegality which has been committed by the learned court to be perpetuated,” the bench added.

Allowing a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Presiding Officer of the Coal Bearing Tribunal, Ranchi, the Court quashed the Tribunal's interim order dated August 3, 2024, which directed the maintenance of status quo in favour of the respondent. It ruled that the Tribunal's order was procedurally flawed as it was passed without providing the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.

The case pertained to a dispute involving the Gondulpara Coal Block, allocated to respondent M/s Adani Enterprises Ltd. through an auction under the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015. After the Supreme Court cancelled its earlier allocation, the block was reallocated, and a Vesting Order was issued on March 8, 2021. The company said that it encountered certain circumstances which resulted in delay in achieving Milestone-2; subsequently the Scrutiny Committee found the respondent responsible for delay in obtaining mining plan and recommend appropriating the Performance Bank Guarantee (PBG) following a show cause notice and after considering the company's response.

Adani Enterprises filed a petition under Section 27(i) of the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015, before the Coal Bearing Tribunal, seeking to restrain coercive actions based on the Scrutiny Committee's recommendation.

The petitioner Union of India contended that the copy of Adani's petition was served and objection was filed on behalf of the petitioner on July 9 and "on the same day hearing was done on stay application" and the Tribunal observed that the petition for seeking injunction against the recommendation of the Scrutiny Committee "is kept in abeyance till passing of any order by the Nominated Authority regarding appropriation of the bank guarantee".

The Union contended before the High Court that Tribunal had considered the petition and without hearing the counsel for the petitioner, the order has been passed in favour of the respondent to maintain status quo till the disposal of the matter even though there was a condolence on the said date.

The court first found that admittedly no opportunity of hearing was to the petitioner-Union of India when the status quo order was passed. The bench thereafter said that the Tribunal's order needs to be interfered with and set it aside.

"It is, thus, evident that the learned court has not bothered to call upon the petitioner-Union of India and in absentia the order has been passed even there is no reference in the said order as to whether the copy of the petition dated 03.08.2024 along with the order dated 02.08.2024 has been served upon the learned counsel for the petitioner or not...The fact about providing no opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-Union of India since is admitted, as such, this Court is of the view that the order dated 03.08.2024 needs to be interfered with," the high court said.

The respondent then submitted that there is no difficulty in quashing of the order but the interest may be protected otherwise the performance bank guarantee will be appropriated. Union opposed this saying that no such order may be passed otherwise the wrong committed by the "learned court will be allowed to be perpetuated".

It thereafter considered whether while exercising the power conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can any order be passed, interim in nature, if the order is passed by the Judicial Officer and; as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, if the order interim in nature will be passed, whether it will not lead to perpetuating the illegality already committed causing prejudice to the parties.

The Court then said, “Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to be exercised under the supervisory power. The issue of applicability of Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai and Ors., (2003) 6 SCC 675 but the applicability of Article 227 of the Constitution of India has again been re-considered by the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court comprising of three Hon'ble Judges in the case of Radhey Shyam and Anr. Vs. Chhabi Nath and Ors., (2015) 5 SCC 423.”

The high court said that it had been laid down in Radhey Shyam that if the order has been passed by the Judicial Officer, the same is to be looked into so far as its propriety is concerned under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

The high court said that the Supreme Court has laid down that the power to be exercised under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not having original jurisdiction but "only supervisory and once the power is supervisory then it is to be used sparingly and only for in appropriate cases for the purpose of keeping the subordinate courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors".

"The power may be exercised in cases occasioning grave injustice or failure of justice such as when (i) the court or tribunal has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have, (ii) has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have, such failure occasioning a failure of justice, and (iii) the jurisdiction though available is being exercised in a manner which tantamounts to overstepping the limits of jurisdiction," the bench said.

Therefore although the high court used its powers under Article 227 by interfering with the status quo order it however refused to pass any interim order. Allowing the Union's plea the bench remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for passing fresh orders within three weeks after providing adequate and sufficient opportunity of hearing to the parties

Case Title: Union of India and Anr vs M/s Adani Enterprises Limited (AEL)

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 177

Click Here To read Judgement