Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dealt with four civil appeals by special leave arising from writ petitions before the Assam High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The disputes concerned settlement of country spirit shops under the Eastern Bengal and Assam Excise Act, 1910. In Civil Appeal No. 668 of 1957, Nagendra Nath Bora and Ridananda Dutt, a partnership formed due to a government notification requiring partners for big shops, submitted a tender for Jorhat country spirit shop for 1957-58. The Deputy Commissioner settled the shop with respondents 3 and 4, ignoring the appellants' tender on the mistaken ground that an earlier High Court order nullifying the appellate authority's settlement had disqualified them. The Excise Commissioner on appeal set aside that settlement and ordered settlement with the appellants. The Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals dismissed further appeals and confirmed the settlement. The dissatisfied respondents moved the High Court, which quashed the appellate authority's order and directed reconsideration of tenders. In Civil Appeal No. 669 of 1957, Lakhiram Kalita had tendered for Murmuria shop; the Deputy Commissioner settled with Bhanurani Pegu; the Excise Commissioner dismissed appeals; but the Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals set aside the settlement and ordered settlement with the appellant. The High Court issued a rule and ordered status quo. The common issues were whether the High Court could quash orders on grounds of errors of fact apparent on the face of the record and whether the appellate authority acted in excess of jurisdiction or violated natural justice. Appellants argued that the High Court exceeded its supervisory jurisdiction by substituting its own view on facts. Respondents alleged errors apparent on face of record and excess of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that under Article 226, certiorari can quash only an error of law apparent on face of record, not an error of fact, even if apparent. The jurisdiction under Article 226 is limited to ensuring that tribunals do not exceed statutory jurisdiction and correctly administer the law; Article 227 powers are not greater. The authorities under Section 9 of the Eastern Bengal and Assam Excise Act, 1910, as amended, are quasi-judicial and amenable to writs, but there was no failure of natural justice merely because another tribunal might disagree. Since the High Court interfered on the erroneous ground of errors of fact, its orders were without jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's orders and allowed the appeals, restoring the settlements made by the Excise Appellate Authority.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ of Certiorari - Error of Fact - Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 226, 227 - The High Court cannot issue certiorari to quash an error of fact, even if apparent on face of record. Certiorari lies only for an error of law apparent on face of record. The High Court interfered on grounds of errors of fact, which was without jurisdiction. Held that the High Court exceeded its supervisory jurisdiction. (Paras Not mentioned) B) Constitutional Law - Judicial Supervision - Scope of Articles 226 and 227 - Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 226, 227 - Jurisdiction under Article 226 is limited to ensuring that judicial or quasi-judicial tribunals do not exceed statutory jurisdiction and correctly administer the law. Article 227 powers are not greater. So long as a hierarchy of officers and appellate authorities created by a statute functions within its ambit, the manner in which they do so cannot be a ground for interference. Held that High Court's interference was without jurisdiction. (Paras Not mentioned) C) Administrative Law - Quasi-Judicial Authority - Test for Quasi-Judicial Capacity - Eastern Bengal and Assam Excise Act, 1910, Section 9 - The question whether an authority acts in administrative or quasi-judicial capacity depends on examination of the statute and rules. On examination, the authorities mentioned in Section 9 of the Eastern Bengal and Assam Excise Act, 1910, as amended by Assam Act 23 of 1953, are not mere administrative bodies and their orders are amenable to powers under Articles 226 and 227. Held that the appellate authority is quasi-judicial. (Paras Not mentioned) D) Natural Justice - Failure of Natural Justice - Context of Statutory Rules - Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 226 - In the absence of evidence that the appellate authority contravened rules of natural justice as understood in the context of the statute's own rules, it is wrong to say there was failure of natural justice merely because the authority's view may not be acceptable to another tribunal. Held that no failure of natural justice was established. (Paras Not mentioned) E) Constitutional Law - Excess of Jurisdiction - Powers of Appellate Authority - Eastern Bengal and Assam Excise Act, 1910, Section 9 - Where an appellate authority is constituted the highest authority by the statute for deciding between claims of rival parties, its powers cannot be circumscribed, nor can it be held to have acted in excess of powers or without jurisdiction on considerations foreign to the statute or rules. Held that the High Court erred in finding excess of jurisdiction based on errors of fact. (Paras Not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution can issue a writ of certiorari to quash an error of fact apparent on the face of the record; scope of judicial supervision over quasi-judicial authorities; whether the Excise Appellate Authority acted in excess of jurisdiction; whether there was failure of natural justice
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the High Court's orders. It held that the High Court had no jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 to quash orders on grounds of errors of fact apparent on the face of the record. The settlements made by the Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals were restored.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- High Court cannot issue certiorari to quash error of fact apparent on face of record
- certiorari lies only for error of law apparent on face of record
- judicial supervision under Article 226 limited to ensuring tribunals do not exceed jurisdiction and correctly administer law
- powers under Article 227 not greater than Article 226
- appellate authority under Eastern Bengal and Assam Excise Act
- 1910 acts quasi-judicially
- failure of natural justice not established merely because tribunal's view may not be acceptable to another tribunal
- natural justice judged in context of statutory rules
