Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1363 (GUJ)

BIPINCHANDRA NATWARLAL MISTRY v. STATE OF GUJARAT

2022-10-12

VAIBHAVI D.NANAVATI

body2022
ORDER : 1. By way of this writ-application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 the writ-applicant herein has prayed for the following reliefs: “(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to admit and allow this petition in the interest of justice. (B) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 29.4.2017 passed by Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Surat in Criminal Misc. Application (for delay condonation) No. 1959 of 2017 as well as order dated 3.11.2014 passed by the Ld. JMFC, Olpad in Private Criminal Inquiry Case No. 16 of 2014 and further be pleased to direct registration of FIR/complaint against the respondent nos. 2 to 7 for the offences punishable u/s. 323, 406, 420, 447, 464, 465, 467, 468, 470, 471, 474, 395, 506(2) of IPC, in the interest of justice. In the alternative (BB) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 29.4.2017 passed by Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Surat in Criminal Misc. Application (for delay condonation) No. 1959 of 2017 and further be pleased remand the matter back to the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Surat for deciding the Criminal Revision Application on merits, in the interest of justice. (C) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to stay the implementation, operation and execution of impugned order dated 29.4.2017 passed by Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Surat in Criminal Misc. Application (for delay condonation) No. 1959 of 2017 as well as order dated 3.11.2014 passed by the Ld. JMFC, Olpad in Private Criminal Inquiry Case No. 16 of 2014, pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition. (D) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to grant such other and further reliefs as may be deemed proper by this Hon'ble Court.” 2. It is the case of the writ-applicant that on 9.7.1995, an Agreement to Sell came to be executed by the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in favour of the writ-applicant in respect of the property bearing City Survey No. 159 situated at Olpad admeasuring 116.04 sq. meters qua construction on the ground floor alongwith land in front and back. In the said Agreement to Sell, it was agreed that if the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 want to sell the property, the writ-applicant would be given the first preference. meters qua construction on the ground floor alongwith land in front and back. In the said Agreement to Sell, it was agreed that if the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 want to sell the property, the writ-applicant would be given the first preference. 2.1 On 24.3.1998, the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 executed a registered Sale Deed No. 337 in favour of the writ-applicant in respect of the property bearing City Survey No. 159 situated at Olpad admeasuring 116.04 sq. meters qua construction on the ground floor alongwith land in front and back. As per the sale deed, the respondent nos. 2 to 4 were permitted to ingress and egress from the open land to the property on the first floor being the original owners. It was further agreed that if the respondents Nos.2 to 4 want to sell the property, the writ-applicant would be given the first preference. 2.2 On 29.5.1998, pursuant to the registered sale deed dated 24.3.1998 being registered Sale Deed No. 337 Entry No. 216 came to be mutated into the revenue records. After issuance of notice under Section 135-D of the Gujarat Land revenue Code to the respondents Nos. 2 to 4, the names of respondents Nos. 2 to 4 were deleted and name of writ-applicant alongwith his wife was entered in the revenue record qua subject property i.e. City Survey No. 59. 2.3 It is further stated that the respondent No. 2 to 4 met the respondents No. 5 to 6 and fixed the sale of the land and on 19.3.2012, the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 issued notice to the writ-applicant showing their inclination/desire to sell the first floor of the property in question only for the sake of it. On 20.3.2012, the writ-applicant filed Regular Civil Suit No. 18 of 2012 against the respondent Nos.1 to 3 in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Olpad for declaration and permanent injunction and showed his willingness to purchase the property at first floor. 2.4 On 26.3.2012, the writ-applicant replied to the notice dated 19.3.2012 and showed his willingness to purchase the property at first floor. On 04.04.2012, the writ-applicant had also sent notice to the respondent No. 5 regarding the pendency of the civil suit before the sale deed was executed. 2.4 On 26.3.2012, the writ-applicant replied to the notice dated 19.3.2012 and showed his willingness to purchase the property at first floor. On 04.04.2012, the writ-applicant had also sent notice to the respondent No. 5 regarding the pendency of the civil suit before the sale deed was executed. It appears that the respondents No. 2 to 4 sold the property by registered sale deed in favour of the respondents No. 5 and 6 on 14.3.2013. 2.5 It is the case of the writ-applicant that the subject property was sold to the writ-applicant and that the said property was once again sold to the respondents No. 5 and 6 to frustrate the legal rights of the writ-applicant attached to that portion of land. It is also the case of the writ-applicant that the respondents No. 2 to 4 had no right, title or interest over the said front and back portion of the land, once the said land was sold to the writ-applicant. 2.6 After the sale deed was executed by the respondents No. 2 to 4 in favour of the respondents No. 5 and 6 the respondents No. 5 to 7 came to the shop of the writ-applicant which was run by the writ-applicant on the subject property and raised quarrel with the writ-applicant. The writ-applicant was abused by the respondents No. 5 and 6. The respondents No. 5 and 6 also damaged the articles lying and thereby committed theft. The writ-applicant was also threatened for death. 2.7 It is the case of the writ-applicant that clearly the respondents No. 2 to 4 who had assured the writ-applicant to sell the first floor of the property to the writ-applicant as and when they decide to sell and even though the respondents No. 2 to 4 sold the said property alongwith the land apportion to the writ-applicant to the respondents No. 5 and 6 and thereby committed criminal breach of trust and cheating for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 425 of the Indian Penal Code. 2.8 It is also the case of the writ-applicant that the respondents No. 2 to 4 committed forgery by creating forged documents to show that they are still the owners of the land apportion to the subject property to the writ-applicant. 2.8 It is also the case of the writ-applicant that the respondents No. 2 to 4 committed forgery by creating forged documents to show that they are still the owners of the land apportion to the subject property to the writ-applicant. The respondents No. 2 to 4 also used false and fabricated documents as genuine knowing them to be in-genuine and thereby they are guilty of offences punishable under Sections 464, 465, 467, 468, 470, 471 and 474 of the Indian Penal Code. 2.9 Though the respondents No. 5 and 6 were aware of the entire facts, they deliberately purchased the property alongwith the apportion land which was sold to the writ-applicant. It is also the case of the writ-applicant that the respondents No. 5 and 6 conspired and they are in connivance with the respondents No. 2 to 4. The respondent No. 7 has abetted the offence and aided the respondents No. 2 to 6 in commission of the said offence. 2.10 On 10.10.2013, the writ-applicant gave written complaint to Olpad Police Station against the respondents Nos. 2 to 7 for the offences punishable u/s. 323, 406, 420, 447, 464, 465, 467, 468, 470, 471, 474, 395, 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code. The writ-applicant made representation to District Superintendent of Police, Surat and requested to register the FIR on 29.12.2013. 2.11 On 24.2.2014, the writ-applicant made representation to the Police Commissioner, Surat and on 2.4.2014. In spite of above representations, the police authority declined to register the FIR. 2.12 Under such circumstances, the writ-applicant on 3.11.2014 filed Criminal Inquiry Case No. 16 of 2014 in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Olpad against the respondents Nos. 2 to 7 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 406, 420, 447, 464, 465, 467, 468, 470, 471, 474, 395, 506(2) of Indian Penal Code. 2.13 The said complaint came to be rejected on 3.11.2014 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Olpad. 2.14 The writ-applicant pursued the revenue proceedings which reached upto the High Court in the proceedings of Special Civil Application No. 15990 of 2016. The said proceedings are pending before this Court. The mutation entry pursuant to the sale deed executed in favour of the writ-applicant has been confirmed upto SSRD and the said order is under challenge in the Special Civil Application No. 15990 of 2016. The said proceedings are pending before this Court. The mutation entry pursuant to the sale deed executed in favour of the writ-applicant has been confirmed upto SSRD and the said order is under challenge in the Special Civil Application No. 15990 of 2016. 2.15 Pending aforementioned writ-application, the writ-applicant was advised to file application against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Olpad. Accordingly on 30.3.2017, the writ-applicant preferred Criminal Misc. Application for condonation of delay being Criminal Misc. Application No. 1959 of 2017 before the learned Sessions Judge, Surat. The said application came to be rejected by the revisional court by order dated 29.4.2017. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned order dated 29.4.2017 the writ-applicant herein approached this Court for quashing of the impugned orders. 3. Ms. Aarya Modi, the learned advocate appearing for Mr. Manan Shah, the learned advocate appearing for the writ-applicant submitted that the learned Magistrate while passing the order dated 29.4.2017 committed gross error though prima facie offence is made out against the respondents No. 2 to 7. The Court below did not entertain the revision application and dismissed the same without considering the merits of the matter and mechanically passed the impugned order. 3.1 Ms. Modi, the learned advocate submitted that the concerned failed to appreciate the fact that the revenue proceedings are pending before this Court and that the mutation entry has been confirmed in favour of the writ- applicant by the SSRD and the said order is under challenge in the said writ-application. Pending those proceedings the writ-applicant was advised to file challenging the order passed by the learned Magistrate rejecting the revision application and, therefore, the delay in filing the revision application be condoned and hyper-technical view taken by the Courts below be quashed. 3.2 Ms. Modi, the learned advocate submitted that prima facie case is made out against the respondents No. 2 to 7 (original accused). 3.2 Ms. Modi, the learned advocate submitted that prima facie case is made out against the respondents No. 2 to 7 (original accused). That the respondents No. 2 to 4 though had assured the writ-applicant to sell the property of the first floor to the writ-applicant as and when they decide to sell, even then the respondents No. 2 to 4 sold the subject property alongwith the land apportion thereto to the respondents No. 5 and 6 and thereby the respondents No. 2 to 4 have committed criminal breach of trust and cheating with the writ-applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The respondents have also committed forgery by creating documents to show that they are owners of the land apportion to the subject property sold to the writ-applicant. Ms. Modi, the learned advocate submitted that the Courts below failed to exercise the powers under Section 195 and failed to follow the principles laid in the case of Lalita Kumari, (2014) 2 SCC 1 . 4. Ms. Maithili Mehta, the learned APP submitted that the orders passed by the Courts below are just and proper. While passing the impugned order the learned Magistrate has taken into consideration the documents which were available to the learned Magistrate and arrived at the findings. Considering the dispute in nature, the dispute can be said to be of civil nature and declined to entertain the application filed by the writ-applicant herein. 4.1 Ms. Mehta, the learned APP submitted that the revisional authority considering the application seeking condonation of delay rightly held that the learned Magistrate has recorded that the case of the complainant is that the writ-applicant was not aware about the impugned order which was passed by the learned Magistrate. Ms. Mehta, the learned APP relied on Para-9 of the order passed by the revisional authority and submitted that the learned Magistrate has recorded the complainant’s verification on 3.11.2014 which was the date on which the impugned order was passed and recorded the presence of the writ-applicant and, therefore, it was not open for the writ-applicant to contend that the writ-applicant was not aware when the impugned order was passed by the learned Magistrate. 5. Heard the learned advocate appearing for the writ-applicant and Ms. Maithili Mehta, the learned APP appearing for the respondent-State. 6. 5. Heard the learned advocate appearing for the writ-applicant and Ms. Maithili Mehta, the learned APP appearing for the respondent-State. 6. The order dated 3.11.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Olpad below Ex.1 in the Criminal Case No. 16 of 2014 reads thus: “Taking into view all the details of the record, the registered sale deed was executed in favor of the complainant by the original owner of the said property, accused no. 1 to 3. It is submitted vide Mark-3/2. In this sale deed vide registration entry no. 337, dated 24.03.1998, the details and measurement of the said property which was sold by the complainant were mentioned on page no. 10. Accordingly, the accused no. 1 to 3 sold the land to the complainant which is situated at Olpad market, sub district- Olpad, District-Surat, towards south of the State Highway no. 8, the ground floor of the property with the compound, registration no. 3/7 with the office of the Panchayat, city survey no. office SIT no. 23 and existing city survey no. 159 of Olpad. Measurement of the aforesaid property which was sold, is 116-04 Sq. m. The registered sale-deed was executed in favor of the accused no. 4 and 5 by the original owners accused no. 1 to 3 which was submitted vide Mark-3/13. In the sale deed vide registration entry no. 2287, dated 08.03.2013, the details of the property which was sold by the original owners to accused no. 4 and 5, are such that the property is situated at the main market of Olpad, towards south of the Olpad Surat State Highway, vide panchayat house no. 3/7, city survey no. SIT No. 23/existing no. 125, survey no. 159, first floor of the property and open land of joint ownership on which stairs of concrete for the passage to upper floor. There is a boundary wall towards west and east of the open land. In the north, there entry is from the Highway. The aforesaid house is located towards south. The construction is of 70-00 sq. m. kitchen is 15 x 15 and land towards the north ad-measuring 46-04 sq. m. thus total 116-04 sq. m. of land which was sold. Thus, the original owners had sold the property of ground floor ad-measuring 116-04 to the complainant in the year 1998 and sold the property of first floor to the accused no. m. kitchen is 15 x 15 and land towards the north ad-measuring 46-04 sq. m. thus total 116-04 sq. m. of land which was sold. Thus, the original owners had sold the property of ground floor ad-measuring 116-04 to the complainant in the year 1998 and sold the property of first floor to the accused no. 4 and 5 in the year 2013. The sale-deed was executed in favor of the complainant by the original owners in the year 1998 wherein it was decided to give priority to the complainant at market rate at the occasion of selling the property of first floor. Before the sale deed for the property of first floor was executed in favor of accused no. 4 and 5, notices were exchanged and dispute took place between the complainant and the original owners and subsequently R.C.S. No. 18/2012 was also filed. As stated by the complainant, the interim injunction application was rejected and the appeal and suit in that regard are pending. Thus, taking into account all these details, the original owners had sold the property of ground floor to the complainant and the property of the first floor to the accused no. 4 and 5. Hence, prima facie, it does not appear that the same property was sold twice. Moreover, when the property was sold to the complainant, it was mentioned that priority will be given to the complainant at market rate at the occasion of selling the property of first floor. In that regard, notices were exchanged between the parties, subsequently followed by dispute and civil suit. Thus, taking into account all the details, prima facie it does not appear that the type of complaint and details brought forward by the complainant took place. The dispute appears to be of civil nature, hence the following order is passed in the interest of justice. ORDER: The complaint of the complainant Bipinchandra Natvarlal is dismissed under section-203 of the Cr.P.C.” 6.1 The aforesaid order dated 3.11.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Olpad below Ex.1 came to be assailed by the writ-applicant herein by filing Revision Application alongwith an application seeking condonation of delay of 02 years and 01 month in filing the revision application. The learned Sessions Court rejected the said application seeking condonation of delay by order dated 29.4.2017. The learned Sessions Court rejected the said application seeking condonation of delay by order dated 29.4.2017. The relevant part of the said order dated 29.4.2017 rejecting the Revision Application reads thus: “8. On perusing the order of Ld. Magistrate, it appears that the said Private Criminal inquiry No. 16/2014 was filed by the applicant in the Court of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Olpad on 3.11.2014. Ld. Magistrate had recorded verification of the applicant on the same day and it has been noted therein that, the said verification was noted down as dictated by the applicant. The applicant's signatures are also affixed on page Nos. 10 and 11 of the said complaint. The Ld. Magistrate after thoroughly going through the documents and facts of the case, was pleased to dismiss the inquiry U/s. 203 of Cr.P.C. on the same day i.e. 3.11.2014. The applicant's advocate has put an endorsement of “seen” below the said order. 9. It is pertinent to note that, the applicant has not submitted that, the Ld. Magistrate had dismissed the complaint in his absence or for that matter the said order was passed after he had left the Court, as such, it can be presumed that, when the applicant was present in the Court when the Ld. Magistrate had recorded the complainant's verification on 3.11.2014, naturally his presence can be presumed in the Court when the order was passed on the same day. The reason that Ld. Adv. had not informed him about the dismissal of the compliant and hence the revision application could not be preferred within the stipulated period is unpalatable. 10. Hence, it cannot be said that the applicant was unaware about the order passed by the Ld. Magistrate and in the event, this Court would not like to exercise in favour of the applicant, hence the point No. 1 is decided in the negative. 11. Thus, the following final order. ORDER 1. This application preferred by the applicant for condonation of delay is hereby dismissed. Magistrate and in the event, this Court would not like to exercise in favour of the applicant, hence the point No. 1 is decided in the negative. 11. Thus, the following final order. ORDER 1. This application preferred by the applicant for condonation of delay is hereby dismissed. Dictated and pronounced in open Court today on 29th April, 2017.” 6.2 Considering the submissions advanced by the learned advocates and the facts on record, the learned Magistrate has after considering the documents on record came to the conclusion that the original owners-respondents No. 2 to 4 had in the year 1998 sold the property of ground floor to the writ-applicant for an area admeasuring 116-04 and the first floor to accused Nos.4 and 5 in the year 2014 and held that it prima facie appears that the property in question was not sold twice as alleged by the writ-applicant and further held that the dispute appears to be more of civil nature and hence dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant/writ-applicant herein under Section 203 of the Code. 6.3 It appears that the writ-applicant herein has instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 18 of 2012 against the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and revenue proceedings are also pending between the parties and it further appears that mutation entry came to be confirmed in favour of the writ-applicant by the SSRD and the said order is subject matter of challenge by way of Special Civil Application No. 15990 of 2016 which is pending adjudication before this Court. 6.4 It further appears that the writ-applicant herein approached the learned Sessions Court by preferring revision application seeking condonation of delay being Criminal Misc. Application No. 1959 of 2017 below Ex.8 in preferring the Revision Application challenging the order dated 29.4.2017 passed by the learned Magistrate, Olpad below Ex.1. The writ-applicant herein while preferring the aforesaid application seeking condonation of delay stated thus in the said application. The said is duly produced at Page-28: “(5) My advocate did not inform me about the said order. Upon inquiring about the said order with my advocate, he asked me to inquire in the court for the same. Therefore, when I, the complainant, inquired in the court, I came to know that my complaint was dismissed and therefore, I immediately submitted an application on 15.03.2017 to get the certified copy. Upon inquiring about the said order with my advocate, he asked me to inquire in the court for the same. Therefore, when I, the complainant, inquired in the court, I came to know that my complaint was dismissed and therefore, I immediately submitted an application on 15.03.2017 to get the certified copy. After receiving the certified copy on 15.03.2017, I have immediately filed the revision application. (6) As the impugned order is null, frivolous, false and unlawful ab initio and as the applicant is ignorant of the law, no information was sought with respect to the said order. Therefore, on knowing recently about the order, the revision application has been submitted. However, in the wide interest of justice, considering the provision of section 5 of the Limitation Act, a delay of two years and one month has occurred in filing the revision application. The revision application needs to be disposed of on merits by condoning the said delay. (7) The findings that the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has held in the above judgment that the period of limitation would start only from the date of the knowledge has been accepted. Therefore, considering the provision of section 5 of the Limitation Act, the appeal needs to be disposed of on merits by condoning the delay occurred in filing the revision application in the wide interest of justice.” 6.5 In the present writ-application the ground seeking condonation of delay and challenging the order rejecting the application seeking condonation of delay preferred by the writ-applicant herein as stated in Para 2.20 and 2.21 reads thus: “2.20 Thereafter, the petitioner has been pursuing the revenue proceedings which reached upto this Hon'ble Court in the proceedings of Special Civil Application No. 15990 of 2016. The said proceedings are pending before this Hon'ble Court and the last date was 21.6.2017. It is pertinent to note that the mutation entry made in pursuance to the sale deed executed in favour of petitioner has been confirmed upto SSRD and the said order of SSRD is under challenge in the above Special Civil Application No. 15990 of 2016. 2.21 During the pendency of above revenue proceedings, the petitioner was advised to file revision against the order passed by Ld. 2.21 During the pendency of above revenue proceedings, the petitioner was advised to file revision against the order passed by Ld. JMFC.” 6.6 Considering the grounds taken by the writ-applicant herein before the Revisional Court in the said application seeking condonation of delay below Ex.8 and the grounds taken by the writ-applicant in the present writ-application, the same are contradictory to each other. The writ-applicant herein has assailed the said order dismissing the reivision application on the grounds which were not taken before the concerned Court. This Court has considered the grounds taken by the writ-applicant in the application seeking condonation of delay and has also considered the reasons stated by the Revisional Court for rejecting the said application wherein considering the reasons stated by the writ-applicant in para-9 of the said application the concerned Court held that the ground raised by the writ-applicant in the said application that the writ-applicant was not aware or informed by the learned advocate who was representing the writ-applicant and that when the writ-applicant inquired into the same it came to the knowledge of the writ-applicant that the complaint was dismissed and, therefore, an application came to be submitted on 15.3.2017 to get certified copy and has sought for condonation of delay of 02 years and 01 month in filing the revision application. The Court below considering the aforesaid averments and grounds raised by the writ-applicant herein held that the writ-applicant was present and the verification was also done by the writ-applicant on the date when the order was passed i.e. on 3.11.2014 by the learned Magistrate First Class, Olpad in Private Criminal Inquiry Case No. 16 of 2014. The said verification affidavit is duly produced at Page-56 which is dated 3.11.2014 duly signed by the writ-applicant herein and the learned advocate of the writ-applicant has also signed as “seen.” 6.7 No error could have been said to have been committed by the concerned Court in arriving at the aforesaid conclusion of rejecting the application for the reason that the concerned Court considered the fact that the learned Magistrate had recorded the verification of the writ-applicant on the same date and that it was noted therein that the verification was noted down as dictated by the writ-applicant. The writ-applicant’s signature was also affixed on Page-10 and 11 of the complaint. The writ-applicant’s signature was also affixed on Page-10 and 11 of the complaint. Having gone through the documents the learned Magistrate had dismissed the complaint on the same date i.e. 3.11.2014 and the writ-applicant’s advocate put endorsement “seen” below the said order. 6.8 The grounds seeking condonation of delay in preferring the revision application in the present writ-application are new and contradictory to the record of the revision application seeking condonation of delay filed before the concerned Court and for both the aforesaid reasons as stated above, this Court is not inclined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction invoking under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. Position of law: (a) In the case of Khalil Ahmed Bashir Ahmed vs. Tufelhussein Samsabhai Sarangpurwala, AIR 1988 SC 184 , Paragraph 13 reads thus: “(13) The intention here is manifest. In any event this is a possible view that could be taken. This Court in Venkatlal G. Pittie and Another vs. M/s Bright Bros. Pvt. Ltd. (1987) 2 Scale 115 and M/s Beopar Sahyak (P) Ltd. and Others vs. Shri Vishwa Math and Others, (1987) 2 Scale 27 , held that where it cannot be said that there was no error apparent on the face of the record, the error if any has to be discovered by long process of reasoning, and the High Court should not exercise jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. See in this connection the observations of the Court in Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde and Others vs. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale, AIR 1960 SC 137 . Where two views are possible and the trial court has taken one view which is a possible and plausible view merely because another view is attractive, the High Court should not interfere and would be in error in interfering with the finding of the trial court or interfering under Art. 227 of the Constitution over such decision.” (b) In the case of State of Andhra Pradesh vs. P.V. Hanumantha Rao (D) LRs. AIR 2004 SC 627 . AIR 2004 SC 627 . Paragraphs 31, 32 and 33 read thus: “(31) In the case of Surya Devi (supra) while examining the nature and ambit of power of the High Court to issue writs under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution, the above stated legal position has been recognised by observing thus: “Though we have tried to lay down broad principles and working rules, the fact remains that the parameters for exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution cannot be tied down in a strait-jacket formula or rigid rules. At the end, we may sum up by saying that the power is there but the exercise is discretionary which will be governed solely by the dictates of judicial conscience enriched by judicial experience and practical wisdom of the Judge.” (32) This Court has recognised the right of the High Court to interfere in orders of subordinate courts and tribunals where (1) there is an error manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear misreading or utter disregard of the provisions of law and (2) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. (33) No doubt, it was held that neither in exercise of power of writ under Art. 226 nor in supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, the High Court will convert itself into a court of appeal and indulge in re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence. The power of the High Court in writ jurisdiction to interfere where important evidence has been overlooked and the legal provisions involved are misinterpreted or misapplied has been recognised even in the case of Swam Singh and Another (supra) on which strong reliance was placed on behalf of the State. The relevant observations are: In regard to a finding of fact recorded by an inferior tribunal, a writ of Certiorari can be issued only if in recording such a finding, the tribunal has acted on evidence which is legally inadmissible, or has refused to admit admissible evidence, or if the finding is not supported by any evidence at all, because in such cases the error amounts to an error of law.” (c) In the case of Gohil Vishvaraj Hanubhai vs. State of Gujarat, (2017) 13 SCC 621 . Paragraph-18 reads thus: “(18) Normally while exercising the power of judicial review, Courts would only examine the decision making process of the administrative authorities but not the decision itself. The said principle has been repeatedly stated by this Court on number of occasions.” 8. In view of the aforesaid, it is well settled principle of law and in the facts of the present case this Court would not sit in appeal over the order passed by the concerned Court in absence of any jurisdictional error or an error in decision making process. In the facts of the present case, no error could be said to have been committed by the concerned Court in rejecting the impugned application filed by the writ-applicant and, therefore, for the aforesaid reasons the impugned order does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the present writ-application stands dismissed. Rule is discharged. 9. It is however open for the writ-applicant to take appropriate steps as permissible under the law. 10. In the course of hearing Mr. Patel, the learned advocate appearing for the private respondents stated that the respondents No. 2, 4 and 7 have expired, in view thereof the proceedings would not continue qua the respondents No. 2, 4 and 7.