IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION [CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] PRESENT: THE HON'BLE JUSTICE ARIJIT BANERJEE CO/63/2025 U NASAR KHAN … PETITIONER VS. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND OTHERS … RESPONDENTS/ OPPOSITE PARTIES For the petitioner : Mr. Arul Prasanth For the respondent no.1 : Mr. N. A.Khan For the respondent nos.8 : Mr. D.C. Kabir, Sr.Adv. Mr. S. Ajith Prasad For the respondent no. 9 : Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar Reserved on : January 28, 2026 Judgment on : February 03, 2026 ARIJIT BANERJEE,J. 1. This civil revisional application is directed against an order dated September 24, 2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Port Blair in W.T. case No.02 of 2024 (Shri U. Nasar Khan vs. Chief Executive Officer). By the said order, the learned Trial Court rejected the petitioner’s prayer for change of personnel of Special Officer appointed by the learned Court for conducting election for constitution of a new executive/managing body of a Masjid. 2. Alleging that the present Opposite Parties (in short ‘OPs”) were wrongly using the name Masjid-e-Noor for a Mosque when the actual 2 name of the Mosque is Masjidun Noor, the petitioner herein filed Other Suit No.02 of 2024 against the present respondents claiming the following relief(s): i. A decree to declare Masjidun Noor is Official Name of the above Masjid. ii. A decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the wrong name of Masjid-e-Noor in any manner. iii. Cost of the suit. iv. An interim order restraining the defendants from using the wrong name of Masjid-e-Noor in place of registered name of Masjidun Noor. v. Any other relief or reliefs in which the Plaintiff is entitled to law and equity. 3. In the said suit, the parties agreed that an election had to be conducted for constituting a new managing committee of the said Mosque. Accordingly, by consent of the parties, a learned advocate was appointed by the Trial Court as the Special Officer for conducting the election. 4. After the Special Officer published the final list of candidates, the petitioner herein filed an application before the Trial Court for replacing the personnel of the Special Officer on the allegation that various irregularities had been committed by him with a view to favouring a particular group. An application was filed by the Special Officer for police help in aid of discharge of his duty as Special Officer. Both the applications were taken up together for hearing by the Trial Court. By the impugned order dated September 24, 2025, 3 the application of the petitioner herein, being the plaintiff in the suit, for change of the Special Officer, was rejected. However, the Special Officer was directed to re-publish the final list of candidates adding a column for serial number and also the residential addresses of the enlisted persons and file a copy thereof in Court. He was also directed to conduct the election on the scheduled date in accordance with law. The Special Officer’s application for police help was allowed. This order has been challenged by way of the present revisional application filed by the plaintiff in the said suit. 5. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Special Officer distributed the form for membership of the said Mosque indiscriminately although the Bye-laws of the Mosque provide that the Management and Administration of the Masjid shall vest with the Sunni Sect of the Hanafi/hafi faith of Tamil speaking muslim community originated from Tamilnadu and living/settled in Andaman & Nicobar islands for more than one year. 6. He further submitted that the Special Officer issued multiple forms to a single person. In all, 441 forms were issued by him. The final list published by him reflected 302 names with only the Aadhaar number of the said persons. No further details such as father’s name, residential address or phone number were included in the final list. At the time of issuance of the forms, the Aadhaar card of the persons, who obtained the forms, were not checked. Only a xerox copy of the petitioner’s Aadhaar card was taken by the Special Officer while 4 issuing a form to the petitioner. There was complete lack of transparency in the manner the Special Officer conducted the election process. Hence, the Special Officer should have been removed by the learned Trial Court and some other person should have been appointed in his place and stead. 7. Learned advocate for the petitioner further complained that none of the aforesaid issues raised in the application of the petitioner seeking removal of the Special Officer, was discussed by the learned Trial Court in its order under challenge. The petitioner’s application was rejected on the specious ground that even if the court changes the personnel of the Special Officer, there is no guarantee that the petitioner will not make application in the future for removal of that person also and this would unnecessarily delay the process of election. 8. Learned senior advocate for the respondent no.8, referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the said respondent, submitted that the petitioner is a trouble-monger. He has caused several civil and criminal actions to be instituted against the present respondents, which have all been unsuccessful till date, merely to harass the respondents/OPs. Completely frivolous and meritless legal proceedings are initiated by the petitioner at regular intervals of time. The Special Officer filed an affidavit before the learned Trial Court in terms of the Court’s direction. In that affidavit, the Special Officer narrated in details all the steps he took for conducting the election. 5 Being satisfied with the same, the learned Trial Court rejected the plaintiff’s prayer for replacement of the Special Officer. There is no illegality or procedural impropriety in the order under revision. No ground has been made out by the petitioner for this Court to interfere with the order under challenge, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. Learned Senior Advocate for the respondent no.8 further submitted that this application has become infructuous. The final list of candidates was published by the Special Officer on September 07, 2025. The order assailed in this revisional application was passed on September 24, 2025. The election result was declared on September 29, 2025 whereby the President, Vice President, Secretary, Joint Secretary, Treasurer and Executive Members of the said Mosque were elected. The result was published in the Daily Telegrams newspaper on October 02, 2025. The petitioner filed the present application only on November 04, 2025. 10. Learned counsel submitted that without challenging the order dated September 24, 2025, immediately, the petitioner allowed the election process to be completed. Thereafter, belatedly the present application has been filed. On that ground alone, the application should be rejected. 11. Learned advocate for the Special Officer adopted the submissions made on behalf of the respondent no.8 and also draw my attention to the affidavit filed by the Special Officer before the 6 learned Trial Court, a copy whereof is annexed to the revisional application. 12. In reply, on the issue of delay, learned advocate for the petitioner said that the petitioner was away from Port Blair for a long time and therefore, there was some delay in filing the present application. Even if there is delay, that would not validate or legalize the irregularity and illegality committed by the Special Officer. All that the petitioner wants is a transparent election. COURT’S VIEW 13. On the aspect of delay, I am not satisfied with the petitioner’s explanation. Documents on record show that after the petitioner submitted his membership form to the Special Officer on September 01, 2025, he left Port Blair on September 03, 2025, for Bangalore. He returned to Port Blair from Chennai on September 15, 2025. Therefore, he was in Port Blair when the learned Trial Court passed the order dated September 24, 2025. It is not the petitioner’s case that after coming to Port Blair on September 15, 2025, he again left Port Blair. The dealy of about one month ten days in filing the present revisional application has not been explained nor has been sought to be explained in the civil revisional petition. 14. Much prior to filing of this application, the election process came to its logical conclusion. A new executive committee and new official holders have been elected. The election result is not under challenge in any proceeding. For all practical purposes, this 7 application has become infructuous, as is rightly submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the respondent no.8. 15. Even otherwise, on a perusal of the documents on record including the affidavit filed by the Special Officer and the respondent no.8, I do not see any glaring infirmity in the order under revision. The learned Trial Court scrutinized the document and the affidavit of the Special Officer submitted before it and rejected the prayer of the petitioner/plaintiff for replacement of the Special Officer. I have also gone through the affidavit of the Special Officer. I do not find any striking irregularity in the procedure adopted by the Special Officer. 16. I have seen that while accepting the membership form duly completed, the Aadhaar card of the intending members were checked. The forms and the Aadhaar cards were scrutinized by the representative of the rival groups. Only thereafter, the Special Officer accepted the forms. 17. I have also noticed that objections had been invited in respect of the election process by the Special Officer. Nobody including the present petitioner raised any objection. Only a letter dated September 09, 2025, was written by a learned advocate, who represented the petitioner before me in the present proceeding. However, in the sid letter, it is nowhere mentioned that he was writing the letter on behalf of the present petitioner or on behalf of his client, whosoever it may be. The letter appears to have been written by the learned 8 advocate in his personal capacity. I do not see what locus standi he had to write such a letter in his personal capacity. 18. The nature and ambit of the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various decisions. 19. In Trimbak Gangadhar Telang-vs. Ramachandra Ganesh Bhide reported in AIR 1977 SC 1222, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that it is only when an order of a Tribunal is violative of the fundamental basic principles of justice and fair play or where a patent or flagrant error in procedure or law has crept in or where the order passed results in manifest injustice, that the High Court can justifiably intervene under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 20. In Achutananda Baidya vs- Prafullya Kumar Gayen reported in (1997) 5 SCC 76, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the power and duty of the High Court under Article 227 is essentially to ensure that the Courts and Tribunals inferior to the High Court, have done what they were required to do. The High Court can interfere under Article 227 in cases of erroneous assumption of or acting beyond jurisdiction, refusal to exercise jurisdiction, error of law apparent on record as distinguished from a mere mistake of law, arbitrary or capricious exercise of authority or discretion, a patent error in procedure, arriving at a finding which is perverse or based on no material, or resulting in manifest injustice. As regards finding of fact of the inferior court, the High Court should not quash the 9 judgment of the subordinate court merely on the ground that its finding of fact was erroneous. However, it will be open to the High Court in exercise of power under Article 227 to interfere with a finding of fact if the subordinate court came to the conclusion without any evidence or upon manifest misreading of the evidence thereby indulging in improper exercise of jurisdiction or if its conclusion is perverse. 21. In Savita Chemicals (P) Ltd. Vs. Dyes & Chemical Workers’ Union reported in (1999) 2 SCC 143, it was observed that under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court could not have set aside any finding reached by the lower authorities where two views were possible and unless those findings were found to be patently bad and suffering from clear errors of law. The Court under Article 227 does not act as an Appellate Court. 22. In Estralla Rubber vs. Dass Esate P) Ltd reported in (2001) 8 SCC 97, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the exercise of power under Article 227 involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior Courts and Tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do duty expected of or required by them in a legal manner. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of subordinate Courts or Tribunals. Exercise of this power of interfering with the orders of the Courts or Tribunals is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant 10 violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. The High Court while acting under Article 227 cannot exercise its power as an Appellate Court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate Court to correct error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. 23. In Sadhana Lodh vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Reported in (2003) 3 SCC 524, the Supreme Court observed that the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 227 is confined only to see whether an inferior court or Tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less an error of law. In exercising the supervisory jurisdiction, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court. It is also not permissible for a High Court on a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to review or re-weigh the evidence upon which the inferior Court or Tribunal has passed its order or to correct errors of law in the decision. 24. The golden thread that runs through the Supreme Court decision is that the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution should be exercised by the High Court sparingly and cautiously. Such jurisdiction is not to be exercised for the mere asking for correcting errors of law or fact in the order of the Tribunal or subordinate Court so long as the Tribunal/Court does not transgress its jurisdiction. The jurisdiction should be exercised only 11 when otherwise grave manifest injustice will be caused to the petitioner. 25. In view of the discussion above both on facts and on the legal position, I am of the considered opinion that the facts of the present case do not call for this Court’s interference with the order dated September 24, 2025, passed by the learned Trial Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Neither is the order under revision bad for want of jurisdiction nor does it suffer from any patent illegality or procedural impropriety. 26. In the result, this civil revisional application is dismissed with cost assessed at Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to be paid to the Andaman and Nicobar State Legal Services Authority within a fortnight from date. 27. A copy of this order be sent by the Registrar, Circuit Bench to the Member Secretary, ANSLSA. In the event, the cost is not paid by the petitioner within the time indicated above, the Member Secretary, ANSLSA is requested to draw the same to the attention of this Court for passing appropriate direction. 28. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of usual formalities ( Arijit Banerjee, J. )