A finding of fact by a tribunal may be quashed by certiorari if it is not based on any evidence on record, is apparently contrary to evidence on record, or is vitiated by non-consideration of the relevant materials on record.

PATHAK, J.:- By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner Dulal Chandra Haza-rika prays for quashing the order of the learned Board of Revenue passed on 26-11-1970 in Excise Case No. IE of 1970.

2. The petitioner's case briefly is that he is a graduate and he joined M. A. and LL.B. classes of the University of Gauhati but left his studies in 1968. The petitioner as well as respondent No. 3 Prafulla Chandra Das and 19 others sub­mitted tenders for settlement of Singlijan Country Spirit Shop for the years 1970-73 in response to a tender notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Lakhimpur District. By his order dated 15th December 1969 the Deputy Commissioner on the advice of the Advisory Committee constituted under the provisions of the Excise Act settled the Singlijan Country Spirit Shop with the petitioner. Respond­ent No. 3 preferred an appeal against the said order of settlement before the Assam Board of Revenue, which was numbered as Case No. IE of 1970. That the learned Board of Revenue by its judgment and order dated 26-11-70 allowed the appeal of the respondent No. 3. set aside the order of settlement dated 15-12-69 of Singlijan Country Spirit Shop with the petitioner and directed that the shop be settled with respondent No. 3 for the re­maining period of the term. The present petition is directed against this order of the learned Board.

3. Mr. S. K. Ghose. the learned Advocate-General of Nagaland. appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the learned Board's finding that the finan­cial soundness of the petitioner was not established is not based on any evidence on record, but on the other hand in arriv­ing at that finding the learned Board took into consideration irrelevant mate­rials and did not take into consideration relevant materials on record and as such the finding of the learned Board in this regard is vitiated. That the learned Board set aside the settlement in favour of the petitioner only on the ground of financial unsoundness and this finding being vitiated, as submitted earlier, the impugned order of the Board is liable to be quashed.

4. The learned Advocate-General also submits that the learned Board itself found that respondent No. 3 suffered from serious drawbacks, that he had been a lessee for long thirty years and he was financially sound and had other means of income also and in that view it is sub­mitted that the learned Board erred in law in directing settlement of the shop with respondent No. 3.

5. The learned Advocate-General lastly submits that the materials on re­cord are eloquent that the respondent No. 3 was a defaulter of Government revenue and therefore the settlement in favour of the respondent No. 3 being in violation of Rule 219. of the Assam Excise Rules, the impugned order of the Board is liable to be quashed.

6. Mr. S. N. Bhuyan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 submits that the learned Revenue Board on consideration of the materials on re­cord found the petitioner to be financially unsound and this was a finding of fact arrived at on the materials on record by the Board and such a finding of fact may not be interfered with in a writ petition, Mr. Bhuyan submits that on considera­tion of the materials on record the learn­ed Revenue Board. whose jurisdiction is co-extensive with that of the original settling authority, found that the respond­ent No. 3 was more suitable than the petitioner and therefore set aside the settlement in favour of the petitioner and settled the shop with respondent No. 3, That the order of the learned Revenue Board is quite within jurisdiction and it is not vitiated by any illegality or ab­sence or excess of jurisdiction and in that view the impugned order of the Board is not liable to be interfered with. The learned counsel adds that the jurisdiction of the High Court in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not an appellate jurisdiction and there­fore there cannot be r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document