Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 1996 (9) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1996 (9) TMI 598 - SUPREME COURTDid the first respondent make bids at the auction of ₹ 50 and ₹ 45 lacs respectively over the successful bids for Group nos. 108 and 111?? Held that:- This is a question of fact. It was rightly referred to the Financial Commissioner under the statutory provision by the Division Bench in its order on the earlier writ petition. On the order passed by the Financial Commissioner the High Court could interfere in a writ position under Article 226 only if it found it to be perverse, that is to say if it found its conclusions such as could not reasonable have been arrived at upon the record. The division Bench in the order under appeal had not so held, specifically or impliedly. The judgement of the Division Bench that the auction with respect to Group nos. 108 and 111 was neither fair nor proper is based upon conjectures and inferences more tenuous than those it found the Financial Commissioner guilty of. Such conjectures and inferences are impermissible in a judgment upon a writ petition under Article 226 where the fact-finding authority had arrived at a conclusion which is not perverse or so unreasonable that, upon the record, it could not have been reached. The Division Bench was, in the circumstances, in error in reaching the conclusion that the auction was not fairly and properly held with the result that the State exchequer had ben subjected to a huge loss. At the same time, the finality of auctions must also be recognised to be in the interests of the exchequer. If auctions are set aside and re-auctions ordered in less than satisfactory material, the loss of the exchequer would be far greater. Appeal allowed
|