KESHAB LAL CHALIHA Vs. ASSAM BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner prays for a writ of certiorari coaching the order of the Assam Board of Revenue, dated 30 -4 -64, by which the Board allowed the appeal of one Birendra Nath Saikia for the settlement of the Tengakhat Country Spirit shop.

(2.) THE Deputy Commissioner on the advice of the Advisory Board directed the settlement of the shop in question with the Petitioner for the period 1964 -67. Four appeals were filed by the other applicants, whose applications were rejected by the Deputy Commissioner, and the Board of Revenue heard the appeals and allowed the appeal of Birendra Nath Saikia and directed settlement of the shop with him, setting aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner directing settlement of the shop with the Petitioner Keshab Lal Chaliha, but dismissed the appeals filed by the other Appellants. In the present petition, all other Appellants whose appeals were dismissed have been impleaded as opposite parties. The main contention of the Petitioner is that the Board of Revenue did not act properly in disposing the appeal. It cannot be doubted that the Deputy Commissioner while making the settlement and the Board of Revenue while hearing the appeal acts as a quasi -judicial body and the order passed by the Board of Revenue are amenable to a writ of certiorari by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The principles on which this Court can issue a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution are no longer in doubt. It has been, hold in various decisions of the Supreme Court as well as by this Court that the High Court can interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution with the order of the quasi -judicial body provided the following conditions exist, namely, (1) that the decision is without jurisdiction or that the tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction; (2) that in the exercise of its juries diction, it has violated any principles of natural justice; or (3) that it has committed any manifest -error of law. It cannot Ire argued in the present case that the Assam Board of Revenue had no jurisdiction to deal with the appeal. Merely because the settlement directed by the Deputy Commissioner on the advice of the Advisory Board has not boon accepted by the Board of Revenue -, it cannot be said that the decision of the appellate authority is beyond jurisdiction, It has been laid down in the case of Nagendra Nath Bora v. Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam : A I R 1958 S C 398, that ordinarily it is expected of an appellate Court not to lightly interfere with the order of the trial Court and the same principle has to be observed by the excise authorities when dealing with the appeals, but the failure to observe that caution does not necessarily render the decision of the appellate authority as without jurisdiction. Mr. Ghose has rightly not con tended that the decision of the Board of Revenue was without jurisdiction.

(3.) THE next ground on which interference can be made by this Court is the manifest error of law. Undoubtedly the question as to whether the Petitioner was or was not efficient during the period he was the lessee is a question of fact and thus it cannot be said that even ii the Board of Revenue has committed an error of record in coming to the finding on this issue; it is a manifest error of law. As has been laid down in the case, which we have already referred to, the High Court can interfere with the manifest error of law and not with a manifest error of fact. Mr. Chose's contention is that even a finding of fact if based on no evidence will be regarded as an error of law. Undoubtedly no objection can be taken to this broad proposition that if a finding even though of fact is based on no evidence, it wilt be an error of law. The only question which has to be examined in this case is whether it can be said that the finding of the Board of Revenue is based on no evidence or it is only a challenge to the appreciation of the evidence made by the Board. The finding of the Board of Revenue that the Petitioner was inefficient and he was not to be preferred to the opposite party No. 2 is based on the fact that there was a fall in the sales during the period the Petitioner was the lessee. That fact is proved by the statement of the sales during, that period. Thus, there is the evidence of the fact of the nature of the sales during that period. From that nature if the Court of fact draws an inference of inefficiency it cannot be said to be a case of no evidence of the record. It is only a case of an inference drawn from the evidence on the record which is challenged by the Petitioner to be incorrect. At page 412 of the case cited above, it has been observed as follows by the Supreme Court: