Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2587 (HP)

Amar Nath v. State of H. P.

2016-12-06

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2016
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Challenge in this appeal is to judgment and order, dated 4th September, 2015, made by the learned Single Judge/Writ Court in CWP No. 5535 of 2012, titled as Amar Nath and another versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants-writ petitioners, i.e. Amar Nath, fatherinlaw of Susheela Devi, and Susheela Devi, came to be dismissed (for short “the impugned judgment”). 2. In order to determine this appeal, it is necessary to give brief resume of the facts of the case, the womb of which has given birth to the appeal in hand. 3. Susheela Devi, i.e. appellant-writ petitioner No. 2, daughter-in-law of appellant-writ petitioner No. 1, came to be appointed as Anganwari Worker in Ward No. 2, Kharotta, P.O. Berthin, Tehsil Jhandutta, District Bilaspur in the year 2008. Respondent No. 5Maya Devi questioned the appointment of appellant-writ petitioner No. 2 and also sought cancellation of the income certificate in terms of which the family income of appellant-writ petitioner No. 2 was stated to be Rs.10,000/-. 4. The Additional District Magistrate, Bilaspur, directed for conducting the inquiry relating to the income certificate issued in favour of appellant-writ petitioner No. 1, i.e. Amar Nath, which was made basis for appointment of appellant-writ petitioner No. 2 as Anganwari Worker. The inquiry was conducted by the Naib Tehsildar, Jhandutta, (Annexure P2 to the writ petition) who after examining the witnesses and the report submitted by the Patwari Halqa concerned, made the assessment and held that the income of appellant-writ petitioner No. 1 was Rs. 14,000/- per annum and the income recorded in the income certificate issued on 13th June, 2007, was factually incorrect. Further held that the income certificate was to be cancelled, which, resultantly came to be cancelled in terms of order made by the Executive Magistrate, Jhandutta (Annexure P4 to the writ petition), constraining the appellants-writ petitioners to file appeal before the appellate authority, i.e. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur. 5. The appellate authority framed three points for consideration and while holding that the inquiry was rightly conducted in terms of the mandate of H.P. Land Record Manual, upheld the order made by the Executive Magistrate, thereby cancelling the income certificate issued in favour of appellant-writ petitioner No. 1 and dismissed the appeal vide order, dated 2nd July, 2012 (Annexure P6 to the writ petition). 6. 6. Being dissatisfied, the appellants-writ petitioners invoked the jurisdiction of the Writ Court by the medium of writ petition seeking quashment of the inquiry report (Annexure P2 to the writ petition), order made by the Executive Magistrate, Jhandutta (Annexure P4 to the writ petition) and order, dated 2nd July, 2012, made by the appellate authority (Annexure P6 to the writ petition) with a further prayer that the income certificate issued in favour of the appellant-writ petitioner No. 1 on 13th June, 2007, be declared as legal and valid, on the grounds taken in the memo of the writ petition. 7. The Writ Court, after examining the pleadings and the law applicable, dismissed the writ petition vide impugned judgment. Hence, the appeal. 8. The moot question is – whether the Writ Court can examine and determine the question of facts? The answer is in the negative for the following reasons: 9. The question of facts determined by the authorities cannot be questioned by the medium of writ petitions unless it is shown that the findings recorded are perverse or are based on no evidence or on the evidence, which is inadmissible. The Writ Court can interfere only where it is shown that the authorities have wrongly appreciated the facts and the evidence and the findings are illegal. 10. While going through the orders made by the authorities, it appears that the authorities have thrashed out all the facts, the orders are well reasoned and legal one, cannot be said to be erroneous, perverse or suffering from non-application of mind, in any way. 11. The Apex Court in the case titled as Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi versus M/s Hindalco Industries Ltd., reported in 2014 AIR SCW 3157, has held that question of fact cannot be interfered with by the Writ Court unless the findings are perverse, erroneous and without application of mind. However, such findings can be questioned if it is shown that the Tribunal/Court has erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence or has erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned findings. It is apt to reproduce paras 16, 17 and 18 of the judgment herein: “16. …............ The question about the limits of the jurisdiction of High Courts in issuing a writ of certiorari under Article 226 has been frequently considered by this Court and the true legal position in that behalf is no longer in doubt. It is apt to reproduce paras 16, 17 and 18 of the judgment herein: “16. …............ The question about the limits of the jurisdiction of High Courts in issuing a writ of certiorari under Article 226 has been frequently considered by this Court and the true legal position in that behalf is no longer in doubt. A writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals: these are cases where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals without jurisdiction, or is in excess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdiction. A writ can similarly be issued where in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it, the court or tribunal acts illegally or improperly, as for instance, it decides a question without giving an opportunity to be heard to the party affected by the order, or where the procedure adopted in dealing with the dispute is opposed to principles of natural justice. There is, however, no doubt that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the court exercising it is not entitled to act as an appellate court. This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior court or tribunal as result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by the tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In dealing with this category of cases, however, we must always bear in mind that a finding of fact recorded by the tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. In dealing with this category of cases, however, we must always bear in mind that a finding of fact recorded by the tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before a writ court. It is within these limits that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 226 to issue a writ of certiorari can be legitimately exercised..................... 17. The judgments mentioned above can be read with the judgment of this court in Harjinder Singh’s case ( AIR 2010 SC 1116 ) (supra), the relevant paragraph of which reads as under: “21. Before concluding, we consider it necessary to observe that while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution in matters like the present one, the High Courts are duty-bound to keep in mind that the Industrial Disputes Act and other similar legislative instruments are social welfare legislations and the same are required to be interpreted keeping in view the goals set out in the Preamble of the Constitution and the provisions contained in Part IV thereof in general and Articles 38, 39(a) to (e), 43 and 43A in particular, which mandate that the State should secure a social order for the promotion of welfare of the people, ensure equality between men and women and equitable distribution of material resources of the community to sub-serve the common good and also ensure that the workers get their dues. More than 41 years ago, Gajendragadkar, J. opined that: “10. … The concept of social and economic justice is a living concept of revolutionary import; it gives sustenance to the rule of law and meaning and significance to the ideal of welfare State.” (State of Mysore v. Workers of Gold Mines, AIR 1958 SC 923 p.928, para 10.) 18. A careful reading of the judgments reveals that the High Court can interfere with an Order of the Tribunal only on the procedural level and in cases, where the decision of the lower courts has been arrived at in gross violation of the legal principles. A careful reading of the judgments reveals that the High Court can interfere with an Order of the Tribunal only on the procedural level and in cases, where the decision of the lower courts has been arrived at in gross violation of the legal principles. The High Court shall interfere with factual aspect placed before the Labour Courts only when it is convinced that the Labour Court has made patent mistakes in admitting evidence illegally or have made grave errors in law in coming to the conclusion on facts. The High Court granting contrary relief under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution amounts to exceeding its jurisdiction conferred upon it. Therefore, we accordingly answer the point No. 1 in favour of the appellant.” [Emphasis added] 12. Our this view is also fortified by the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Iswarlal Mohanlal Thakkar versus Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. & Anr., reported in 2014 AIR SCW 3298. It is apt to reproduce para 9 of the judgment herein: "9. We find the judgment and award of the labour court well-reasoned and based on facts and evidence on record. The High Court has erred in its exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to annul the findings of the labour court in its Award as it is well settled law that the High Court cannot exercise its power under Article 227 of the Constitution as an appellate court or re-appreciate evidence and record its findings on the contentious points. Only if there is a serious error of law or the findings recorded suffer from error apparent on record, can the High Court quash the order of a lower court. The Labour Court in the present case has satisfactorily exercised its original jurisdiction and properly appreciated the facts and legal evidence on record and given a well reasoned order and answered the points of dispute in favour of the appellant. The High Court had no reason to interfere with the same as the Award of the labour court was based on sound and cogent reasoning, which has served the ends of justice. It is relevant to mention that in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty & Anr. The High Court had no reason to interfere with the same as the Award of the labour court was based on sound and cogent reasoning, which has served the ends of justice. It is relevant to mention that in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty & Anr. v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329 , with regard to the limitations of the High Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227, it was held in para 49 that." The power of interference under Art.227 is to be kept to a minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and courts subordinate to the High Court." It was also held that" High Courts cannot, at the drop of a hat, in exercise of its power of superintendence under Art. 227 of the Constitution, interfere with the orders of tribunals or courts inferior to it. Nor can it, in exercise of this power, act as a court of appeal over the orders of the court or tribunal subordinate to it." Thus it is clear, that the High Court has to exercise its power under Article 227 of the Constitution judiciously and to further the ends of justice. In the case of Harjinder Singh v. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, (2010) 3 SCC 192 , this Court held that,- "20. ..... In view of the above discussion, we hold that the learned Single Judge of the High Court committed serious jurisdictional error and unjustifiably interfered with the award of reinstatement passed by the Labour Court with compensation of Rs.87,582 by entertaining a wholly unfounded plea that the appellant was appointed in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and the Regulation." 13. The same principle has been laid down by this Court in a series of cases. 14. We have gone through the record and are of the view that the appellantswrit petitioners have not been able to made out a case that the findings recorded by the authorities are perverse or based on no evidence or on inadmissible evidence or suffers from nonapplication of mind or the authority, which had conducted the inquiry, was not competent to do so. 15. 15. Having said so, the Writ Court has rightly held that the findings of fact recorded by the authorities cannot be interfered by the Writ Court. 16. Viewed thus, the impugned judgment is upheld and the appeal is dismissed alongwith all pending applications.