9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 2013X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... final orders dated 24.04.2017 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna dismissing the appeal being LPA No. 855 of 2016 against the judgment and order dated 8.3.2016 of a learned Single Judge inter alia allowing the writ petition filed by the Respondent, Prakash Chandra Chaudhary being CWJ Case No. 2019 of 2015 and directing the Indian Oil Corporation, being the Appellant in SLP (C) No. 16902-16904 of 2018 to issue the Letter of Intent allotting the retail outlet in issue in writ petition to the said Respondent and also an order dated 14.3.2018 dismissing the applications for review of the said judgment and order dated 24.3.2017 of the Division Bench being Civil Review No. 215 of 2017 and Civil Review No. 231 of 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s ability/Acumen (5 marks) h. Personality (2 marks) 6. It appears that a panel of three candidates was prepared in which the Appellant Sanjay Kumar Jha was placed on the first position and the Respondent Prakash Chandra Chaudhary in the second position. The Appellant Sanjay Kumar Jha was awarded 90.73 marks and the Respondent Prakash Chandra Choudhary was awarded 89.93 marks. 7. The Giriyama retail outlet was allotted to the first empanelled candidate being the Appellant Sunil Kumar Jha. Challenging the allotment, the Respondent Prakash Chandra Chaudhary filed a writ petition in the High Court Judicature at Patna being CWJ Case No. 2019 of 2015. 8. By an order dated 8.3.2016, the learned Single Bench of the High court allowed the writ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that is Respondent Prakash Chandra Chaudhary had become the candidate with the highest marks, entitled to be awarded the dealership of the Giriyama Retail Outlet. 13. 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. 14. Even otherwise, the Single Bench erred in arriving at its aforesaid finding, ignoring the report of the Reven ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Respondent Prakash Chandra Chaudhary was within Giriyama. 16. 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 Chaudhar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titution, 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. However, even in cases where the High Court finds an apparent factual error which goes to the root of the decision, the appropriate course of action would be to give the opportunity to the authority concerned to rectify the error. It is only in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent 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 order of the learned Single Bench is also set aside. 23. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. The judgment and order under appeal as well as the judgment and order of the Single Bench are set aside and the writ petition is dismisse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
