Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 686 (PAT)

Renu Devi v. State of Bihar

2012-04-27

NAVIN SINHA

body2012
JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and for private respondent no. 11. 2. The controversy relates to appointment on the post of Anganwari Sewika. The order dated 19.3.2012 adequately notices the facts of the case and it is not considered necessary to reiterate the same except to the extent necessary. 3. The only question for consideration is if the Commissioner has applied his mind correctly to the issues involved for adjudication as arising from the order of the District Magistrate dated 27.2.2009 before setting it aside on 25.8.2011. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Commissioner has not considered and dealt with the findings of the District Magistrate based on enquiry reports referred to in the order. 5. Counsel for respondent no. 11 submits that if the petitioner’s name did not figure in the BPL list, there is no infirmity in the order of the Commissioner calling for interference. 6. The power of judicial review under Article 226 is not to be equated with an appellate power. The writ Court does not exercise supervisory appellate jurisdiction. The powers of the writ Court in judicial review are primarily confined to infirmities in the decision making process. If there is infirmity in the decision making process, the order has to be set aside and the matter remanded. Infirmity in the decision making process includes when the authority deciding the issues does not apply his mind properly to all questions that fall for consideration, applies his mind by not taking into consideration matters relevant or decides on issues not directly relevant. An order which does not take into consideration relevant materials suffers from non application of mind. The order of the Commissioner runs into 8 pages. Six pages deal with what was argued by whom. The conclusions substantively at Page-7 completely misdirects itself when it fails to consider the findings of the District Magistrate and the materials on which it was based before setting it aside. If the Commissioner desired to upset the findings of the District Magistrate he was required to deal with the same and by a process of discussion arrive at his own conclusion why the findings of the District Magistrate were erroneous. If the appellate authority is permitted to upset an order without dealing with the original order on merit, it may vest arbitrary and uncannalized power in the appellate authority. 7. If the appellate authority is permitted to upset an order without dealing with the original order on merit, it may vest arbitrary and uncannalized power in the appellate authority. 7. What shall be the ultimate conclusion is not the concern of the Court. The concern is limited to the manner in which the decision is arrived at. 8. The order dated 25.8.2011 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner, Koshi Division to hear the parties afresh in the manner discussed in the order and pass a reasoned and speaking order within a maximum period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 9. The writ application stands disposed.