SANJAY KUMAR JHA versus PRAKASH CHANDRA CHAUDHARY & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 14 S.C.R. 893 · Decided: 05-12-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. BANUMATHI · Disposal: Leave Granted & Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
893
SANJAY KUMAR JHA
v.
PRAKASH CHANDRA CHAUDHARY & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 11857-11859 of 2018 etc.)
DECEMBER 05, 2018
[R. BANUMATHI AND INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
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.
[2018] 14 S.C.R. 893
893
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
894                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
895
panel.  Even if there had been any error in the computation of
marks in respect of fixed and movable assets,

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