Tulzapurkar, C.J. - (1.)These four petitions have been placed before this larger bench with a view to ascertain the impact of Article 227 of the Constitution as amended by the Constitution (42 Amendment) Act, 1976 on pending petitions filed under that Article prior to its amendment and to consider the allied questions that arise under the said amended article. Each of the four petitions has been regarded as being representative in character of a large number of petitions that have been filed and are pending in this Court since prior to 1st February 1977, the date on which the amended Article 227 has come into force.
(2.)By Spl. Civil Application No. 5377 of 1976 a certain decision rendered in appeal and confirmed in review by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 has been challenged by the petitioners therein under Article 227; the petition was filed on 9-12-1976 and rule nisi and interim stay were granted by this Court on 14-12-1976. Spl. Civil Application No. 1880 of 1973 is directed against an order dated 21-6-1973 passed by the Commissioner, poona Division, rejecting an application made by the petitioners Under Section 88D (1) (iv) of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, whereby the petitioners had sought revocation or cancellation of the exemption certificate granted to their landlord under Section 88C on 5-7-1958; the petition was filed under Article 227 on 3-8-1973 and rule nisi and interim stay have been granted by this Court on 6-8-1973. In Spl- Civil Application No. 1428 of 1975 the petitioners therein have challenged the validity and/or legality of two notifications -- Section 4 notification dated 25-8-1969 and Section 6 notification dated 12-9-1972 issued under the Land Acquisition Act purporting to acquire the petitioners' lands for public purpose viz. resettlement of persons likely to be affected due to Krishna Dam Project under Article 227; the petition has been filed on 21-6-1975 and rule and interim injunction have been issued by this Court on 1-7-1575. in Spl-Civil Application No. 1703 of 1975 the petitioner's (plaintiff) suit for possession against his tenant under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 was dismissed by the learned Judge of Small Causes Court at Pune on 5-6-1974 and against the dismissal he had filed an appeal to the District Judge at Pune and the learned Assistant Judge who heard the appeal allowed the same but remanded the suit back to the trial Court with certain directions; the petitioner-plaintiff has challenged the appellate court's order under Article 227 of the Constitution; the petition was filed on 1-8-1975 and rule and interim stay have been granted by this Court on 4-8-1975. It is thus clear that all these four petitions filed under the unamended Article 227 have been admitted and are pending in this Court on 1-2-1977 when the amend-ed Article 227 has come into force and the principal question that has been raised before us is whether the amended Article 227 would be applicable to or affect in any manner these four and similar other pending petitions ? If the answer to the first question be in the affirmative, the second question raised is whether this Court can and/or should permit the petitioners to amend their petitions so as to convert them into petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution ? Yet another question raised is what is the true effect of deletion of the words 'and tribunals' from the original Article 227 and addition of the words 'subject to its appellate jurisdiction' after the words 'all courts' in the amended Article 227 (1) on future petitions that might be filed after 1st February 1977 under the amended Article 227 ?
(3.)On the principal question as to whether the pending petitions (meaning petitions filed and admitted before 1-2-1977) under the original Article 227 would be governed or affected by the amended Article 227 which has come into force on 1st February 1977, Mr. Seervai appearing for the petitioners submitted that such pending petitions will have to be proceeded with, heard and disposed of by this Court under the original Article 227 and the hearing and disposal of these petitions will not be affected in any manner by the amended Article 227 for three or four reasons; in the first place he urged that the amended Article 227 has not been given any retrospective operation either expressly or by necessary intendment so as to apply to or govern the pending petitions and in the absence of such retrospective operation the pending petitions must be dealt with and disposed of in accordance with the original or unamended Article 221; secondly, he pointed out that in the context of Section 58 of the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976 making special provisions hi regard to pending petitions under the original Article 226 (where expressly it has been enacted that such pending petitions shall be dealt with in accordance with the amended Article 226) and in the absence of similar provision in regard to pending petitions under the unamended Article 227 it should be reasonably inferred that the Parliament did not intend to make the amended Article 227 applicable to pending; petitions filed under the original or unamended Article, 227 and the intention was clear that such petitions should be governed anddisposed, of under the original Article 227; thirdly, he relied upon Section 6(e) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 as also on the principle enunciated by the Privy Council in the leading ease of Colonial Sugar Refinery Ltd. v. Irving reported in 1905 AC 369; and lastly, in the alternative, he urged that quite independently of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, such pending petitions would be saved from the amended Article and would have to be dealt with and disposed of in accordance with the original Article 227 in view of the well-settled general principle that, unless contrary can be shown a provision which takes away the jurisdiction of a court is itself subject to an implied saving of a litigant's right and there is, nothing in the amended Article 227 to indicate to the contrary. On the second question mentioned above, he submitted that if the Court came to the conclusion that the pending petitions under the original Article 227 were governed by and were required to be proceeded with under the amended Article 227, it would be bath seasonable and equitable to grant permission to the petitioners to amend their petitions so as to convert them into petitions under Article 226, for, it is because of amendment that has been effected by Parliament in the original Article 227 that the necessity to amend the petitions in the above manner could be said to have arisen, for which the petitioners cannot be blamed; of course, he fairly conceded that unless the petitioners were able to make out a case under Article 226 the Court would not be in a position, to grant any relief to them, but that would be an aspect touching the merits of the case which the Court will have to determine after the amendment was allowed. On the third question he submitted that in regard to future petitions the High Court will be able to exercise the power of superintendence under the amended Article 227 not only over all courts but also over tribunals, bodies or authorities provided two conditions were satisfied viz. (i) such tribunal, body or authority, whatever be its label, was basically a court and (ii) such tribunal, body or authority was subject to High Court's appellate or revisional jurisdiction; in other words, the amended Article 227 is not confined to exercising judicial superintendence over regular civil or criminal courts constituted under the hierarchy of Courts but would extend to tribunals, bodies or authorities, who perform judicial functions of rendering definitive judgments having finality and authoritativeness to bind the parties litigating their rights before them in exercise of sovereign judicial power transferred to them by the State, provided such tribunals, bodies or authorities are subject to High Court's appellate or revisional jurisdiction.