NAGENDRA NATH BORA & ANOTHER versus THE COMMISSIONER OF HILLS DIVISION AND APPEALS, ASSAM AND OTHERS

Citation: [1958] 1 S.C.R. 1240 · Decided: 07-02-1958 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: NATWARLAL HARILAL BHAGWATI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

'1240 
SUPREME COURT- REPORTS 
[l958j. 
·.,NAGENDRA NATH BORA & ANOTHER · 
.·• . . 
v. 
•. 'I 
February 7· 
. 
', 
~ 
.- THE .. COMMISSIONER OF HILLS 'DIVISIO~ _.-
.· .. 
~ND- APPEA~S, ASSAM, A~D- OTHERS_ 
-·-
: ·'; ·: 
- (and ·connected appeals) 
: 
-
. 
l ',.. . 
·.· 
..• 
. . 
. 
' 
' 
·' . ' 
' . 
~·: (BHAGWATit' B. P. SINHA~ JAFER I~IAM, J. L~ KAPUR I 
: •. ' . ~ .. ) . 'and GA~~N!;JR.A.G.ADKAR JJ.) \. ·--~. 
' ·.· :' '~ 
_ 
High Court, Powers of-. vVrit of certiorari,. if can be issue,l. to 
quash an r,rror of fact appare1~t ,on the face of the .record-Judicia~ 
Supervision,· Scope of-Appellate ,Authority if and. when _acts_ 
i1~ 
quasi-judicial. capacity-· Tes~-:-Plea of failure of .natzeral ·justice~ 
when· can be ··entertai}£ed-Constitution of India, Arts. 226,· 2:27-· 
Eastern Be·ngal and :Assam Excise. Act, I9IO (E. B. & Assam· Act I 
of.I9IO) as amendedby Ad. 23 of I955, s. 9· Rule 343· 
. 
: 
·. 
The High Court has no power under Art. 226 of the Con5titi.i'-
tion to issue a writ of certiorari in order to quash an error of tact, 
even though it may be apparent on the face of the record. It can 
do so only where the error is one of law and that is apparent on 
the face of the record. 'Any error of law or fact which it can 
con·ect as a: court of appeal or revision cannot be a ground for the 
exercise of its power under that Article. · ·' 
. 
. 
· H ari V islmu Kamath v. Syecl Alw~ed I shaquc a-n,l 'otlzers, [1955] 
I S.C.R. II04, relied on. 
Quem v. James Bolton, (r84r)'(r) Qucen.•s Bench 66, Ki1~g ~­
Nat Belt Liqz~ors, Limited, [1922] 2 A.C. 128, Rex v. Nortlum~b,;r­
land Compensation.. Appeal Tribunal, (1951) I K.B. 7II and Rex v_. 
Nortlmmberlmtd Compensatiol~ Appeal Tribunal, (1952) I K.B. 338, 
;referred to. 
. 
. 
. 
The jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 226 of the 
Constitution is limited to seeing that the judicia~ or quasi-judicial 
tribunals or administrative bodies exercising quasi-juditial powers, 
do not exceed their statutory jurisdiction and correctly administer 
the law laid down by the statute under which they act. So long. 
as the hierarchy of officers and Appellate authorities created by a 
statute function within their ambit, the manner in which they do 
so can be no ground for interference. 
· 
The powers of judicial supervision of the High Court under 
Art. 227 of the Constitution are not greater than those under 
Art. 226 and must be limited to seeing that the tribunal functions 
within the limits of its authority. 
}Varyam Singh and another v. Amama!IJ and another~ [1954] 
S.C. R. 565, referred to. 
Consequently, where the High Court in exercise of its powers 
under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution interfered with 
... 
I . 
s.c.It~ 
S.UPREI\fE COURT ;REPORTS 
1241 
. · tain orders.made by th: Ex~ise Appellate Authority under the 
I9J8 
cersam Excise Act a~ bcmg m excess of its jurisdiction on the 
As und that they were ';'itiated by errors of fact apparent on the lfagmdra Nath 
f:~e of the record, such tnt~rference was without jurisdiction and Bora 6- Another 
the orders passed by thcHtgh Court must be set aside. 
. ·. 
v. . . 
· 
1 
· 
Tha CommtssumBr 
Held further; that w 1ere an appellate Authority as in the 
fH'll D · · . 
, . 
' 
' 
d h h" 
• 
' 
0 
I 
.S 
IUISJ01J 
·nstaltt case, IS constitute 
t e 
1~hest authonty by the statute cS- Appeals · Assam 
~or decidin~ as bet~veen . the c\~lffiS Of rival parties, its powers 
and O;hers 
' 
cannot be c1rcums;nbed ~o~ c~n ~t be hehl to. have acted in excess 
of its powers or. w1thout JUn_sdlctlOn on considerations foreign to 
the statute or .the rules. . . 
. 
. . 
. 
. 
. . . 
Rainmt and Raman Ltd. v. The State of J.l!adra.s, [rgs6] S.C.R. 
zs6, referred to. 
. ' . ! 
. 
In the absence of anything to show that the appellate 
Authority had contravened any rules of natural justice, which 
must be understood in the context of tl~ rules Jaid down by the 
statute itself, it would be wrong to say that · there has been a 
:failure of natural justice simply because the .view it took of the 
matter might not be acceptable to another tribunal. 
New Prakas!J Transport .co. Ltd. v. New Suu::ama Transport 
Co. Ltd., [I957] S.C.R. g8, rehed on. 
· 
· 
' • · The question ~vhether an ·administrative authority functions 
merely in .an administrative. or quasi~judicial capacity .must be 
determined on an examination of the statute and its rules under 
\vhich it acts, and there can be no doubt on such examination 
that the Authorities men

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.