STATE OF J&K Vs. S. TEJPAUL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Jammu and Kashmir has filed the instant application seeking review of judgment and order dated 10.10.2005 passed by a Division bench of this Court in OWP no. 942/2002 and CMP no. 780/2005. It is pertinent to mention that order dated 02.09.2002 passed by the Revenue Minister in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction under Section 6 of the Jammu and Kashmir Grant of Permanent Resident Certificate (Procedure) Act, 1963 was the subject matter of challenge, by which the Hon'ble Minister cancelled the Permanent Resident Certificate issued in the year 1955 to the successor-in-interest of non-applicants-respondents. The aforesaid order has been set aside by the Division Bench.

(2.) The learned Additional Advocate General has made an attempt to persuade us to reverse the findings recorded by the Division Bench by re-appreciating the evidence all over again. According to the learned counsel the findings recorded by the Revisional Authority should have been accepted by the Division Bench. How ever, various paragraphs of the judgment under review would reveal that the Division Bench has refused to enter into area of re-appreciating the evidence and the findings recorded by the Revisional Authority. The Division Bench has exer cised jurisdiction by setting aside the laconic findings which were not supported by evidence. The Division Bench has highlighted that in adequacy of evidence to sustain a finding of fact may not constitute a valid basis to set aside a finding but absence of any evidence would be particularly when Permanent Resident Certifi cate issued in 1955 to successor-in-interest of the non-applicants-respondents was set aside by the order passed by Hon'ble Minister on 02.09.2002. The aforesaid fact is clear from the following para of the judgment:-

(3.) The aforesaid principle is based on well settled law of exercising certiorari jurisdiction. The scope of certiorari jurisdiction has been the subject matter of consideration of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in various judgments. In that regard reliance may be placed on the observations made in the cases of Syed Yakoob v. K. S. Radhakrishnan and anr, 1964 AIR(SC) 477 and Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and ors, 2003 6 SCC 675, where it has been held that the true legal position of the certiorari jurisdiction is no longer in doubt and a writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by the inferior Courts or Tribunals, where the orders are passed by inferior Courts or Tribunals without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdiction such a writ can be issued. In para 7 of the judgment in Syed Yakoob's case the following observations have been made:-