Constitution of India:
Art. 226 – Jurisdiction under – Scope of – Held: In exercise of jurisdiction u/s. 226, High Court cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by a competent administrative authority, nor reappreciate evidence to correct the error of fact and substitute its own findings – Interference with administrative matters is permissible only when the decision is violative of fundamental or basic principles of justice and fair play or suffers from any patent or flagrant error – If the court finds factual error which goes to the root of the decision, appropriate course would be to give the opportunity to the authority concerned to rectify the error – It is only in the rarest case, where factual error is so obvious that it is rectifiable by the court itself, that the Court might, to prevent delay and consequential denial and/or miscarriage of justice, rectify the error – It is not for the High Court to embark upon comparative assessment of the suitability of different candidates for appointment of a dealer of a retail outlet.
Public Distribution:
Allotment of retail outlet of diesel/petrol etc. – Writ petition, challenging the allotment – Single Judge of the High Court after evaluating the facts of the case, held that the writ petitioner was entitled to be awarded the dealership – Appeal against the order was dismissed by Division Bench of High Court – On appeal, held: High Court embarked upon adjudication of hotly disputed factual issues, which was not permissible in exercise of jurisdiction u/Art.
226 of Constitution – High Court patently erred in brushing aside reports of the competent authorities and arrived at a different finding – Orders of Single Judge as well as Division Bench of High Court are liable to be set aside – Writ Petition is dismissed. Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the High Court does not adjudicate, upon affidavits, disputed questions of fact. The High Court cannot sit as a Court of Appeal over the findings recorded by a competent administrative authority, nor reappreciate evidence for itself to correct the error of fact, that does not go to the root of jurisdiction. The High Court does not ordinarily interfere with the findings of fact based on evidence and substitute its own findings, which the High Court has done in the present case. [Paras 13 and 16] [898-B, H; 899-A]
1.2 In exercise of discretionary power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court might interfere with administrative matters only if the decision is violative of fundamental or basic principles of justice and fair play or suffers from any patent or flagrant error. It is true that the High Court might rectify, in exercise of its power of judicial review, an error of law or even an error of fact, for sufficient reasons, if the error breaches fundamental or basic principles of justice or fair play or if the error is patent and/or flagrant, but not otherwise. However, even in cases where the High Court finds an apparent factual error which goes to the root of the decision, the appropriate course of action would be to give the opportunity to the authority concerned to rectify the error. [Para 19][899-F-H]
2.1 In arriving at the finding regarding the location of the land offered by the respondent, the Single Bench of High Court embarked upon adjudication of a hotly disputed factual issue, which the High Court, while exercising its writ jurisdiction, does not do. Even otherwise, the Single Bench erred in arriving at its aforesaid finding, ignoring the report of the Revenue Authorities, including the District Magistrate. [Paras 13, 14][898-B-C]
2.2 Even assuming that the respondent had erroneously been awarded zero marks, the order of the Single Bench does not disclose the process of reasoning for arriving at the conclusion that the respondent had become the candidate with the highest marks. There was no reason to assume that the respondent would have to be awarded marks that would make him rank first in the panel. Even if there had been any error in the computation of marks in respect of fixed and movable assets, the High Court could, at best, have remitted the case of the respondent to the concerned authorities for reconsideration. [Paras 15 and 16] [898-E-F; 899-B]
2.3 It is not for the High Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to embark upon a comparative assessment of the suitability of different candidates for appointment of a dealer of a retail outlet. The High Court, should not have decided the factual question regarding the location of the land of respondent. The High Court patently erred in brushing aside the reports of the Revenue Authorities and arriving at a different finding. [Para 21][900-C-D]
2.4 The Division Bench of High Court has apparently dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant proceeding on the patently erroneous basis that the land of respondent had been found to be situated within the radius of one kilometer of Giriyama chowk whereas the land of the appellant was situated outside the Giriyama circle, which was not even the case of respondent in the writ petition. Even the Single Bench had found that the land of the appellant was within Giriyama. The judgment and order under appeal cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside on that ground alone. [Para 22][900-E-G]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.