The word ‘control’, as we have seen, was used for the first time in the Constitution and it is accompanied by the word ‘vest’ which is a strong word. It shows that the High Court is made the sole custodian of the control over the judiciary. Control, therefore, is not merely the power to arrange the day to day working of the court but contemplates disciplinary jurisdiction over the presiding Judge…. In our judgment, the control which is vested in the High Court is a complete control subject only to the power of the Governor in the matter of appointment (including dismissal and removal) and posting and promotion of District Judges. Within the exercise of the control vested in the High Court, the High Court can hold enquiries, impose punishments other than dismissal or removal….
The above position has been reiterated by Supreme Court in Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh and Others Vs. L.V.A. Dixitulu and Others, . In Corporation of the City of Nagpur, Civil Lines, Nagpur and another Vs. Ramchandra and others, while interpreting the provisions of Section 59(3) of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948, this Court held as follows:
4. It is thus now settled by this Court that the term “control” is of a very wide connotation and amplitude and includes a large variety of powers which are incidental or consequential to achieve the powers-vested in the authority concerned….
The word “control” is also sometimes used synonyms with superintendence, management or authority to direct, restrict or regulate by a superior authority in exercise of its supervisory power.
Supreme Court in The Shamrao Vithal Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Kasargod Pandhuranga Mallya, held that the word “control” does not comprehend within itself the adjudication of a claim made by a co-operative society against its members. The meaning of the word “control” has also been considered by this Court in State of Mysore Vs. Allum Karibasappa and Others, while interpreting Section 54 of the Mysore Cooperative Societies Act, 1959 and Court held that the word “control” suggests check, restraint or influence and intended to regulate and hold in check and restraint from action.
The expression “control” again came up for consideration before Apex Court in Madan Mohan Choudhary Vs. The State of Bihar, in the context of Article 235 of the Constitution and the Court held that the expression “control” includes disciplinary control, transfer, promotion, confirmation, including transfer of a District Judge or recall of a District Judge posted on ex-cadre post or on deputation or on administrative post etc. so also premature and compulsory retirement.
Reference may also be made to few other judgments of Supreme Court reported in Gauhati High Court and Another Vs. Kuladhar Phukan and Another, , State of Haryana Vs. Inder Prakash Anand H.C.S. and Others, High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Vs. Ramesh Chand Paliwal and Another, Kanhiya Lal Omar Vs. R.K. Trivedi and Others, T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, , Ram Singh and Others Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh and Others, etc.