9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog1980 (3) TMI 269X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hereinafter called the Primary Authoriry) on the advice of the Advisory Committee constituted under Rule 208 of the Assam Excise Rules, by an Order dated April 30, 1979, settled the shop with the appellant for the aforesaid period. 4. Mukunda Bore, respondent I, preferred an appeal under Section 9 of the Assam Excise Act before the Assam Board of Revenue. The Board on the application of respondent 1 herein, by an order dated May 31, 1979, stayed the operation of the aforesaid settlement order, dated April 30, 1979, observing that the appellant (respondent 1 herein) was a sitting lessee and had alleged that the financial position of the appellant is not good and that the latter had supressed facts in the tender. With this reasoning, the Bo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shidhar Buragohain, is an Ahom and is recognised by the Rules as ''other backward class". 10. In the information on his financial capacity submitted by Mukanda Bora in the Form prescribed under the Assam Excise Rules, he mentioned that his "father will finance him with ₹ 25,900/- or more" and in support filed an affidavit of his father, Mukta Ram Bore. Particulars of the funds held by the father were given by him in his affidavit as under: (1) ₹ 20.000/- held under Account No. 9774 lying in deposit at Jorhat Post Office (2) A balance of ₹ 902.50 in Savings Bank Account No. 8648 of the United Bank of India, Jorhat Branch. The information supplied by Mukanda Bore or his father in the affidavit di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6, 1979, he took over charge of the shop on payment of ₹ 6,905-07, no amount was withdrawn from the term deposit of ₹ 20,000/ or from Account No. 8648 having a credit balance of ₹ 5.902.50. The Board observed ''that it was not shown to the Court (Board) how the amount which was required at the time of taking the charge of shop was obtained by the respondent (Mukanda Bore)." (b) Even if it be assumed that a part of this amount of ₹ 6,905.07 came out of Account No. 8648 which on April 19,1979 had a credit balance of ₹ 3,5,902.50, then also, no explanation was coming forth about the source of the shortfall of about ₹ 1,000/-. (c) It was apparent that part of the source required by the respon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dar for somebody else behind the scenes. It is emphasised that the Board did not record any finding that the transaction was benami or that the appellant was otherwise an undesirable person. The Board, it is argued, has proceeded merely on suspicion and conjectures about the source of the finance and recorded a finding which is based on no evidence. In so doing the Board has committed errors of law which the High Court could set right in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction. 15. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents submits that it could not be said that the Board had proceeded merely on conjectures and surmises. It is stressed that no information was disclosed either at the time of tender or at any stage before the Inqu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d not, on principles of sound practice, disturb the settlement in the exercise of its special jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 16. While on facts the order of the Board under appeal is not impeccable, we must remember that under Article 226 of the Constitution a finding of fact of a domestic tribunal cannot be interfered with. The High Court in the exercise of its special jurisdiction does not act as a Court of appeal. It interferes only when there is a jurisdictional error apparent on the face of the record committed by the domestic tribunal. Such is not the case here. It is true that a finding based on no evidence or purely on surmises and conjectures or which is manifestly against the basic principles of natural just ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rue source of the amount, his Counsel appears to have taken the stand that this amount came from Account No 8648, which, on the face of the entries in that account, was manifestly incorrect. It is true that the appellant produced a letter, dated June 11,1979, from the Agent of the State Bank of India, showing that his father's account with that Bank stood overdrawn to the extent of ₹ 5,900/- on that date. It is true that the Board has not discussed the evidentiary value of this letter. But without the production of the Pass Book relating to that Bank account this letter did not by itself furnish adequate information with regard to the source of the entire amount of ₹ 6,905.07 which the appellant had to pay the former lessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
