2018 (12) TMI 2013 - SC - Indian Laws

Allotment of a retail outlet by the Indian Oil Corporation - HELD THAT - It is well settled that in proceedings Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the High Court does not adjudicate upon affidavits disputed questions of fact. In arriving at the finding that the land offered by Respondent Prakash Chandra Chaudhary was located within Giriyama Mauza of Falka Block the learned Single Bench embarked upon adjudication of a hotly disputed factual issue which the High Court while exercising its writ jurisdiction does not do. The Single Bench erred in arriving at its aforesaid finding ignoring the report of the Revenue Authorities including the District Magistrate that the land of Respondent Prakash Chandra Chaudhary is situated at a distance of 800 meters from Giriyama chowk towards Falka which is within block Falka but outside the limits of the place Giriyama. The District Magistrate and the Additional Collector clearly stated that the land was beyond Nisundhra Bangali Tola which is the limit of Giriyama. It is well settled that in proceedings Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the High Court cannot sit as a Court of Appeal over the findings recorded by a competent administrative authority nor reappreciate evidence for itself to correct the error of fact that does not go to the root of jurisdiction. The High Court does not ordinarily interfere with the findings of fact based on evidence and substitute its own findings which the High Court has done in this case. Even assuming that there had been any error in the computation of marks in respect of fixed and movable assets the High Court could at best have remitted the case of Respondent Prakash Chandra Chaudhary to the concerned authorities for reconsideration. In exercise of discretionary power of judicial review Under Article 226 of the Constitution the High Court might interfere with administrative matters only if the decision is violative of fundamental or basic principles of justice and fair play or suffers from any patent or flagrant error. It is true that the High Court might rectify in exercise of its power of judicial review an error of law or even an error of fact for sufficient reasons if the error breaches fundamental or basic principles of justice or fair play or if the error is patent and/or flagrant but not otherwise - It is only in the rarest of cases where the factual error is so obvious that it is rectifiable by the Court itself that the Court might to prevent delay and consequential denial and/or miscarriage of justice rectify the error. The High Court should not have decided the factual question of whether the land of Respondent Prakash Chandra Chaudhary was in Giriyama in view of the reports of the concerned Additional Collector District Magistrate and Circle Officer to the effect that the land of Respondent Prakash Chandra Chaudhary was in Falka block and not within Giriyama. The High Court patently erred in brushing aside the reports of the Revenue Authorities and arriving at a different finding. Conclusion - The Division Bench has apparently dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellant proceeding on the patently erroneous basis that the land of Respondent Prakash Chandra Chaudhary had been found to be situated within the radius of one kilometer of Giriyama chowk whereas the land of the Appellant Sanjay Kumar Jha was situated outside the Giriyama circle which was not even the case of Respondent Prakash Chandra Chaudhary in the writ petition. Even the learned Single Bench found that the land of the Appellant Sanjay Kumar Jha was within Giriyama. The judgment and order under appeal cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside on that ground alone. The appeals are allowed.

Summary

The legal judgment involves appeals against a decision of the High Court of Judicature at Patna regarding the allotment of a retail outlet by the Indian Oil Corporation. The main issues considered in the judgment include the evaluation criteria for selecting dealership applicants, the location of the retail outlet, the interpretation of the advertisement criteria, and the role of the High Court in adjudicating disputed factual issues.**Issues Presented and Considered:**1. Whether the land offered by the dealership applicants was within the specified location criteria.2. Whether the High Court had the jurisdiction to adjudicate disputed factual issues in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.**Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:****Evaluation Criteria for Dealership Applicants:**- The Indian Oil Corporation evaluated applicants based on various parameters such as land capability, financial capacity, educational qualifications, business acumen, and experience.- The appellant was ranked first in the evaluation process, while the respondent was ranked second.**Location of the Retail Outlet:**- The dispute arose over the location of the retail outlet in Giriyama, Katihar District, Bihar.- The High Court found discrepancies in the reports regarding the exact location of the land offered by the applicants.- The Single Bench and Division Bench differed in their interpretations of the location criteria, leading to conflicting decisions.**Interpretation of Advertisement Criteria:**- The High Court interpreted the advertisement criteria incorrectly, leading to a finding that the respondent should have been awarded the dealership based on the location of his land.- The Court criticized the Single Bench for adjudicating disputed factual issues and substituting its findings for those of the administrative authorities.**Role of High Court in Adjudicating Factual Issues:**- The High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 does not extend to adjudicating disputed factual issues.- The Court should not act as a Court of Appeal over administrative decisions but may intervene if there are fundamental errors or violations of justice.**Significant Holdings:**- The High Court erred in its interpretation of the location criteria and in disregarding the reports of the administrative authorities.- The Division Bench's decision was based on a mistaken premise regarding the land's location, leading to the setting aside of the judgments under appeal.In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgments of the High Court, and dismissed the writ petition. The Court emphasized the limited role of the High Court in adjudicating factual disputes and the need to respect administrative decisions unless there are fundamental errors or violations of justice.