Jageshwar Yadav S/O Late Sona Yadav, R/O Village- Korgaiyo P.S.- Tilaiya Dam P.S. – v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribag at Hazaribagh PO- Hazaribagh
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No.5027 of 2017 ------ Jageshwar Yadav S/O Late Sona Yadav, R/O Village- Korgaiyo P.S.- Tilaiya Dam P.S. – Barhi, District – Hazaribag (Jharkhand) … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribag at Hazaribagh PO- Hazaribagh PS- Sadar Dist Hazaribagh 3. Sub-Divisional Officer Barhi at Barhi PO- Barhi PS- Barhi Dist Hazribagh Jharkhand. … Respondents For the Petitioner For the Respondents
Legal Reasoning
------ : Md. Zafar Alam, Advocate : Mr. Manish Kumar, Sr. SC II Md. Asghar, AC to Sr. SC II ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issuance of appropriate writ/order/direction or writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 16.03.2017 passed in Licence Revision No.72 of 2015 by the Commissioner, North-Chota Nagpur Division, Hazaribagh whereby and where under the order dated 04.09.2013 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh in Licence Cancellation Appeal No.04 of 2011 which was filed against the order dated 24.02.2011 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Barhi for cancellation of Fair Price Shop of the petitioner, has been dismissed. 1 W.P. (C) No.5027 of 2017 3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner is a Fair Price Shop licensee since the year 1993. There were some complaints against him. A joint inspection was conducted by the Block Development Officer and Block Supply Officer, Barhi. The following irregularities were found:- (a) The shop was closed. (b) Notice board was not available. (c) The consumers were given kerosene oil at the rate of Rs.12/- per litre. (d) The Antyodaya and BPL Card holders were not given 5 kg rice. (e) The petitioner used to give less quantity of control commodity by measuring the same through a box and consequent the same, the said license was cancelled. 4. The petitioner admitted before the Commissioner that on the date of inspection, the shop was closed but explained the closure of the shop because the petitioner had to go to Koderma in connection with treatment of his daughter. He also admitted unavailability of notice board; the probable cause being the children might have erased the same. The Commissioner considered the documents available in the record and was also satisfied that the petitioner has violated the condition of the license which has been discussed in detail in the order of the Deputy Commissioner; which order was impugned before the Commissioner. Violation of the condition of the license was found to be true during the inspection. Hence, the Commissioner did not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and dismissed the revision. 2 W.P. (C) No.5027 of 2017 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is false. The petitioner has not violated any terms and conditions of license. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer made in this Writ Petition be allowed. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent- State submits that show-cause was issued to the petitioner after violation of the conditions of the license which were found during the inspection. It is then submitted that no illegality has been committed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Barhi, Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh or the Commissioner, North Chota Nagpur Division in passing their respective orders. Hence, it is submitted that this Writ Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. 7. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that scope of interference with an order in exercise of the power vested upon the constitutional courts for the writ of certiorari is a very limited one and the finding of fact recorded by the court below cannot be interfered with in exercise of such writ jurisdiction. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences & Another vs. Bikartan Das & Others reported in 2023 INSC 733 paragraphs-53, 76 and 77 of which read as under:- “53. Relying on T.C. Basappa (supra), the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Hari Vishnu Kamath (supra), laid down the following propositions as well established: “(1) Certiorari will be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction, as when an inferior court or tribunal acts without jurisdiction or in excess of it, or fails to exercise it. (2) Certiorari will also be issued when the court or tribunal acts illegally in 3 W.P. (C) No.5027 of 2017 the exercise of its undoubted jurisdiction, as when it decides without giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard, or violates the principles of natural justice. (3) The court issuing a writ of certiorari acts in exercise of a supervisory and not appellate jurisdiction. One consequence of this is that the court will not review findings of fact reached by the inferior court or tribunal, even if they be erroneous.” 76. It being open to the tribunals to come to one or the other conclusion on the materials before them, it cannot by any means be said that the decisions are incorrect so as to attract the extraordinary jurisdiction for interference by a writ of certiorari. In a King’s Bench decision in R. v. Brighton and Area Rent Tribunal, (1950) 1 All England Reporter 946, Lord Goddard, CJ. observed that: “… As the tribunal had observed all the formalities of the Act, had offended against none of its provisions or against the regulations made under it, there was no ground for holding that the tribunal’s determination was not in accordance with law, and, therefore, the motions for certiorari and mandamus should be refused”. 77. The purpose of certiorari, as we understand, is only to confine the inferior tribunals within their jurisdiction, so as to avoid the irregular exercise, or the non-exercise or the illegal assumption of it and not to correct errors of finding of fact or interpretation of law committed by them in the exercise of powers vested in them under the statute. The accepted rule is that where a Court has jurisdiction it has a right to decide every question which crops up in the case and whether its decision is correct or otherwise, it is bound to stand until reversed by a competent Court. This Court in G. Veerappa Pillai v. Messrs Raman and Raman Ltd. Kumbakonam, Tanjore District and Others, (1952) 1 SCC 334 observed: “26. Such writs as are referred to in Article 226 are obviously intended to enable the High Court to issue them in grave cases 61where the subordinate tribunals or bodies or officers act wholly without jurisdiction, or in excess of it, or in violation of the principles of natural justice, or refuse to exercise a jurisdiction vested in them, or there is an error apparent on the face of the record, and such act, omission, error, or excess has resulted in manifest injustice. However extensive the jurisdiction may be, it seems to us that it is not so wide or large as to enable the High Court to convert itself into a court of appeal and examine for itself the correctness of the decision impugned and decide what is the proper view to be taken or the order to be made.” (Emphasis supplied) has reiterated the settled principle of law that the court issuing a writ of certiorari acts in exercise of a supervisory and not appellate jurisdiction. One 4 W.P. (C) No.5027 of 2017 consequence of this is that the court will not review findings of fact reached by the inferior court or tribunal, even if they be erroneous. 8. Now, coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed fact remains that the petitioner’s fair price shop was found closed on the date of joint inspection in violation of the terms and conditions of the license. Undisputedly, the notice of the shop was not available and there are other facts regarding the violation of the terms and conditions of the license and as a consequence, the license has been cancelled. There is no illegality committed by the Commissioner of Chota Nagpur Division, Hazaribagh in passing the impugned order. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that there is no merit in this Writ Petition. 9. Accordingly, this Writ Petition, being without any merit, is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 27th of June, 2024 AFR/ Animesh 5 W.P. (C) No.5027 of 2017