JAGANNATH NAIK Vs. BALA HEGDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is directed against the order dated 15th January, 1999 passed in writ petition No. 431 of 1998 by a learned Single Judge of this Court. The petition was preferred against the order of the Administrative Tribunal, Goa, Panaji, in Miscellaneous Revision Application No. 16 of 1994. The Administrative Tribunal by its judgment dated 31st January, 1997 had quashed and set aside the order of the third respondent. The third respondent in an appeal before him had allowed the appeal setting aside the order of the second respondent. The second respondent had dismissed the application for declaration of mundkarship by the original applicant now represented by his legal representatives who are the appellants. The Administrative Tribunal while disposing of the petition held that the applicant had failed to establish that the applicant was residing with a fixed habitation, which is one of the requirements for a person to be declared as a mundkar.

(2.) AT the hearing of this appeal on behalf of the appellants, their learned Counsel contends that the Administrative Tribunal could not in exercise of its revisional power re-appreciate the evidence. Re-appreciation of the evidence, it is contended, is for the fact finding authorities. Revisional authority is not one such authority. It is further contended that the finding that the applicant was not residing with a fixed dwelling is perverse and consequently the order of the Tribunal cannot be supported. The learned Single Judge of this Court, it is contended, has merely accepted the findings recorded by the Tribunal regarding fixed habitation and considering the peculiar facts of that case and has dismissed the application. Once the finding on fixed dwelling itself was perverse, the learned Single Judge, though normally would not re-appreciate a finding of fact, ought to have exercised his jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) ON the other hand, on behalf of the respondent No. 1, now represented by the legal heirs, it is contended that the Tribunal has recorded findings of fact based on the evidence. Learned Single Judge of this Court has concurred with the said findings. In that view of the matter, no interference is warranted. It is further pointed out that there is no absolute bar in a revisional Court considering the material on record and re-appreciating the facts more so considering the history of the case. In these circumstances, the exercise of power by the Tribunal in re-appreciating the evidence and recording findings on facts cannot be faulted with.