MEHROTRA. C J. : The petitioner prays for a writ of certiorari quashing 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 Lai 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. (3) The main contention of the petitioner is that the Board of Revenue did not act properly in disposing of 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 orders passed by the Board of Revenue are amenable to a writ of certiorari by this Court under Article 228 of the Constitution. The principles on which ibis Court can issue a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution are no longer in doubt. It has been held 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 juris­diction, it has violated any principles of natural justice; or (3) that it his committed any manifest error of law. It cannot be 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 been accepted by the Board of Revenue, it cannot be said that the decision of the appellate authority is beyond jurisdic­tion. Merely because the settle­ment directed by the Deputy Commissioner on the advice of the Advisory Board has not been 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, AIR 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 contended that the decision of the Board of Revenue was without jurisdiction. His first argument is that the Board of Revenue has violated the principles of natural justice inas­much as it has relied upon circumstances for which there was no evidence on record. The Board of Revenue has repelled the reasoning of the Deputy Commissioner that the fall in the sales may be due to other circumstances, on the ground that during the previous years there was a fall in the sales while-there was an increase in the sales in 1962-63 when another lessee was managing the shop. The Board of Revenue has observed that there has been an appre­ciable increase in the sales when the shop was managed by Birendra Nath Saikil in the year 1962-1963 although there was Chinese aggression and there was flood in the State of Assam. The Board of Revenue has relied on these circumstances in further strengthening the case that the increase was there in the sales when the shop was in the management of the other lessee in spite of the difficulties which the State was facing during that year. It cannot be said the Board of Revenue has taken into consideration any fresh evidence brought on the record without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to meet the additional evidence. No additional evidence was produced by the present opposite party before the Board of Revenue which has been taken into consi­deration by the Board of Revenue without giving the petitioner an opportunity to meet that evidence. No additional evidence was produced by the present opposite party before the Board of Revenue which has been taken into consi­deration by the Board of Revenue without giving the petitioner an opportunity to meet that evidence. What the Board of Revenue has taken into consideration is the fact that during the period when the petitioner was the lessee there was a fall in the sales while there has been an increase in the sales during the period when the shop was managed by Birendra Nath Saikia. It cannot, therefore, be said that there was any violation of the principles of natural justice during the hearing of the appeal. (4) 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 in 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 bas 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. Ghose'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 will 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. 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 : "The principle underlying the jurisdiction to issue a writ or order of certiorari, is no more, in doubt, but the real difficulty arises, as it often does, in applying the principle to the particular facts of a given case. In the judgments and orders impugned in these appeals, the High Court has exercised its supervisory jurisdiction in respect of errors which cannot be said to be errors of law apparent on the face of the record. If at all they are errors, they are errors in appreciation of documentary evidence or affidavits, errors in drawing inferences or omission to draw inferences. In other words those are errors which a Court sitting as a Court of appeal only, could have examined and, if necessary, corrected." (5) One of the tests to find out whether the error is one of the inferences to be drawn from the evi­dence or it is a case of no evidence is to find out whether the error could be corrected by a Court of appeal. The High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution does not sit as a Court of appeal and it cannot be said that there is a manifest error of law or that the finding of the Board of Revenue is based on no evidence. We have considered the matter care­fully and in our opinion, it is not a case where we should exercise our powers under Article 226 of the Constitution and grant any relief to the petitioner. (6) In the result, therefore, there is no substance in this petition and it is rejected with costs, which we assess at Rs. 50/-. Petition dismissed.