LexBISHNU RAM BORAH & ANR. versus PARAG SAIKIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
I . • "· r • BISfl:NU RAM BORAH & ANR. v. PARAG SAIKIA & ORS. • November 16, 1983 JA.P. SEN, i\. VARADARAJAN $l. v. BALAKRiSHNA ERADl, JJ.] Colistittition OJ I~dia-Art .. 226-Pow<:r of High Co1111-_Scope of. . . . ' . ' Co'nstiiution .of Jndia-Arts. 226.and 227~Judg~1e111s_ and Orders of 'High Courts binding a~d must be.obeyed by all inferior .Courts arid· tribunals subjet·t to their supervisory_jurisdic~ion. · A·ss~n1 Excise Rti!es, i945-Rule 223-Phras~ 'edl1c~'ted."unemployed_ a'ppearing ;11 nnt~ be/Ow r11l~ 223-1\feaning of.: ... y0uth~ I Practh e a_uJ Proce.dI;re__.:.·Tii·O scparat~ petitions ftle;I il:i the san1e case- High Court dealt-with 01ie. arrd kepJ. the. other per.ding-::-Procedure adopted _not proper alld against iule of fair/ilay. ·1vhile critfri~ii1g lo-wer au.ilrorities u-Se of har~h language 11111st be· ilvoided . H-\Jrd.~ an.d phr(Ises-EduCated 11nen1pl_oyed )'(lllfh. . . The 'Hoard of Revenue on.a consideration of the material on record as to the suila.bility ·or otherWisC of the rival pairs of claimants upheld the grant'· of a liquor licence ma"de·by the ·Deputy. Cominissio.ner in favour of th.e app6l~ 13.nts. It h'eld·thcit reSpondent No. 1 \Vas a n1ere benamidar of a promine_nt businessman and respondent NO. 2 heiog Still a student studying for his B.Sc. · ~egree could not be treated as an. 'e~IJcated uilen)ployed youth' .Within the ·meani~g of the note beneath r. 223 of the Assam Exche Rules, .1945. The respondeni -Nos. 1 and 2 ·and. ihe. infervenors separately moved thC"J:i:igh COurt under ·Aft. 226 of the Constittitiori. lhe Higi1 Court instead of taking up both -.the petitions together: ,took the writ·petition filed by .respondents Nos.) and 2 and on a reappraisal of the evidence came tO the concluSion coritrary to that rea- ched by the Board. It. accordingly quashed the or.der ·o(the Board ·of ·Revenue and remanded the n1attef to the Board for a decis.ion afresh, in the light of the directions made by lt. .The Board tOok serious exception .to certain observations made by the Hig'h Court. and held. that th:.~ directions issued Were nOlliing but .m~r~ observati~ri!> and therefore it was· l!Ot ·bound by. it. After hearing thci ·pal-Lie$, the Board rllaintai~ed its earlier order-.con.finning the settlement "Of the liquor shop by_ the Dep,uty Com~1issioncr with the appellants. R.fspondents · Nos. 1 and 2 again 1:DOVCd. the High C,ourt under- Art. ·226. The High Court passed strictures on the Board of Revenue fo_r not having complied with · its di~eCtions and on a consip'eration Of "thC facts appearing came to the same A • B c D F G H A • B c D E F G H . SUPREME COURT REPORTS . [198.:ii i s.c.R . conclusion as-before and q~ashed the order of the Board bu~ iristciad ~f remand- ing the matter to the Board for complying·with itS earlier orders issued a writ of mandamus direciing him to settle the country iiquor shop with r~sp_ondents ·Nos. 1 and 2 on condition that the grant would be subjcCt to an inquiry as to whether respondent No. _l waS a mere benamidar and also subject to the result of e~rlier writ Pet_ition~filed by .the inte_rvenors which ~as still pending .. . · .In appeal, the two quesiions which ~rose were.: (l) 'W!~ether it was impenpissible for the High Court to have embarked upon an.inquiry into facts and on a reappraisal of the eviden~e-come to a finding contrary to.' that reaChed by.the Board of Revenue and upgn that"basis issue a writ of certiorari under Art. 226 qaushing the ·order of Board. And (2) Whether it was a proper exercise of jurisdiction by·tl;e High Court under. Art. 226 to. have issued a writ .of. mandamus ordaining the Deputy Commissioner to settle th_e couritry liquor sh0p with respondents Nos. 1 and 2. · · AnsWering the first. ques!Jon in the- affirmative and the second. in the negative. HELD ·: 1. The JHgh Court clearly e~ceeded it? .jurisdiction while issuing a writ of ccrl_iorari under Art. 226 of the Constitution ·in quashing the impugned order of the Board of Revellue to have_ Cmbarked uopn an inquiry· in.to the facts and Upon a reappraisal of the e·.iidence come to· the conclusion ·. contrafy .to that reached by thC Board of Rev~nue viz. whet!Jer or not. respon-· dCnt No. l ~as a mere bena111idar. (837 -F-G) • .. 2 .. It was aisO not a proper exercise of )urisdiction unde'r Ari. 226 for - the High Court. to have ·issued. a ·writ of niandamus directing the Deputy
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.