1958 (2) TMI 37 - SC - Central Excise

Whether the High Court was right in holding that the Appellate Authority had exceeded its legal power? Held that - We would however like to make it clear that we are interfering with the interlocutory order passed by the High Court in this case because of its unusual and exceptional features. It is clear that our decision on the main points urged in the other appeals necessarily leads to the inference that even if all the allegations made by the respondents in their petition before the Assam High Court are accepted as true there would be no case whatever for issuing a rule. Indeed the respondent found it difficult to resist the appellant s argument that if the other appeals were allowed on the general contentions raised by the appellants the dismissal of his petition before the Assam High Court would be a foregone conclusion. It is because of these special circumstances that we have decided to interfere with the interlocutory order in this case in the interests of justice. The appeals must be allowed and the orders passed by the High Court in the several cases set aside.

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
2. Nature and scope of appellate and revisional powers under the Eastern Bengal and Assam Excise Act, 1910.
3. Validity of orders passed by the Excise Appellate Authority.
4. Principles of natural justice and their application.
5. Error apparent on the face of the record.
6. Maintenance of status quo and interim orders.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution:
The appeals questioned whether the High Court could exercise its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 to interfere with the orders of the Excise Appellate Authority. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court's power under Article 226 is limited to quashing orders on grounds of jurisdictional errors or errors of law apparent on the face of the record. Article 227 allows the High Court to ensure that subordinate courts function within their jurisdiction but does not extend to correcting mere errors.

2. Nature and Scope of Appellate and Revisional Powers under the Eastern Bengal and Assam Excise Act, 1910:
The Act provides a hierarchy of authorities for the settlement of excise shops, with the Excise Appellate Authority being the highest. The Supreme Court emphasized that these authorities must act judicially, impartially, and objectively, giving reasonable opportunities to the parties to present their cases. The powers of the appellate authorities are co-extensive with those of the primary authority, and they are required to pass "speaking orders."

3. Validity of Orders Passed by the Excise Appellate Authority:
The High Court had set aside the orders of the Excise Appellate Authority on the grounds that it acted in excess of its jurisdiction and committed errors apparent on the face of the record. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the Appellate Authority had the jurisdiction to make its own selection and that its orders were within the ambit of the law. The High Court erred in limiting the Appellate Authority's powers and treating errors of fact as errors of law.

4. Principles of Natural Justice and Their Application:
The High Court found that the Excise Appellate Authority failed to observe principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court noted that the rules under the Act do not require the recording of evidence or issuing notices for hearings. The practice of hearing counsel and giving reasoned judgments was followed, and there was no contravention of natural justice principles as per the statutory framework.

5. Error Apparent on the Face of the Record:
The Supreme Court clarified that an error of law must be manifest on the face of the record to attract the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction. Errors in appreciating evidence or drawing inferences do not qualify. The High Court had incorrectly treated errors of fact as errors of law, leading to an unwarranted interference with the Appellate Authority's orders.

6. Maintenance of Status Quo and Interim Orders:
In the case of the Tinsukia country spirit shop, the High Court's interim order to maintain the status quo was misinterpreted, leading to wrongful dispossession of the appellants. The Supreme Court found this to be a flagrant abuse of power and restored possession to the appellants. The High Court's failure to correct this mistake in time was criticized.

Conclusion:
The appeals were allowed, and the High Court's orders were set aside. The Supreme Court directed that the appellants should get their costs, except for the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 670, who must bear his own costs. The judgment reinforced the limited scope of High Court's supervisory jurisdiction and upheld the validity of the Excise Appellate Authority's orders.

← Previous Next →