A Single Bench of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh while dismissing a Petition under Article 227 has reiterated the settled position of law that the power vested in the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution has to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. It held that this is a discretionary relief which must be exercised to ensure that there is no miscarriage of justice.

The Court was dealing with a case wherein the Petitioner’s father had filed an appeal against an order of Assistant Commissioner, Revenue directing attestation of mutations in favor of respondents, before the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu, which was dismissed. Thereafter, he filed a revision against the order of Divisional Commissioner before the Financial Commissioner, which was again dismissed. The Petitioner however, had thrown challenge only to the order of the Assistant Commissioner, Revenue, and the order of the Financial Commissioner, and not to the order of the Divisional Commissioner. 

The Court, while noting that the Petitioner suppressed the order of the Divisional Commissioner deliberately held that in absence of any specific challenge to the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu, the petition is not even maintainable on technical grounds. 

Further, the Court observed that the Petitioner after having lost at three forums has invoked the supervisory powers of the High Court under Article 227, however, it held that the Court while exercising the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India does not act as Court of first appeal to re-appreciate, re-weigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. The Court held that power under 227 can be exercised when there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the Court or the Tribunal has come to.