The court emphasized the conditions under which an order of an inferior tribunal or a statutory authority could be interfered with by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

( 1 ) DELAY condoned.

( 2 ) HAVING heard Mr Dwivedi, learned Senior Counsel at length and on examining the impugned order of the High Court as well as the order of the minister concerned on the question of withdrawing from the acquisition already made, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the said order of the Minister does not suffer from any apparent error requiring to be corrected by the High Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the constitution of India. The High Court after a detailed examination of the materials on record having dismissed the writ petition for the reasons indicated therein, we find that no case for our interference under Article 136 of the Constitution has been made out. Nonetheless, the applicant before us being an engineering institution for whose benefit the land had been acquired, we examined the order passed by the Minister concerned, withdrawing from the acquisition and all the relevant materials. We could not find any apparent error in the said order, requiring interference by the High court or this Court. It is well settled that an order of an inferior tribunal or a statutory authority could be interfered with by the High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, only if the Court comes to the conclusion that the order is contrary to certain provisions of law or the authority concerned has no jurisdiction or the authority concerned took into consideration certain extraneous materials, not germane to the issue or the authority concerned failed to take into consideration certain materials which are otherwise relevant or the finding is one on the materials which could not have been arrived at by any reasonable man. We have scrutinized the order of the Minister concerned from the aforesaid standpoint and we do not find the said order to be suffering from any of the aforesaid infirmities, requiring interference by the Court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. It may be stated that the said order of the Minister has not been assailed by alleging any mala fides and the only ground on which the said order was assailed is that the Minister concerned did not have enough materials to come to the conclusion in question. On examining the order of the Minister as well as the materials on record, we do not find any force in the aforesaid contention. In the aforesaid premises, we dismiss the special leave petition.