Perversity review in auction disputes limits writ interference with fact-finding orders and defeats unsupported re-auction directions.

Writ interference with a fact-finding decision on a liquor-vend auction was confined to cases of perversity or manifest unreasonableness. The Financial Commissioner's rejection of the bid challenge was supported by surrounding circumstances, including the timing of bank drafts, the bidding pattern, the absence of contemporaneous protest and the observers' reports, so the finding was not shown to be perverse. The High Court's contrary view rested on inference and conjecture rather than a demonstrated flaw in that order, and the direction for re-auction was also found unworkable and unsustainable. The challenge to the auction therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the liquor-vend auction and directing re-auction on the basis that the highest bids were wrongly ignored, and whether the Financial Commissioner's rejection of the challenge to the auction was perverse or unreasonable.

Analysis: The dispute turned on a pure question of fact, namely whether the first respondent had in fact made bids substantially higher than the accepted bids. The matter had earlier been referred to the Financial Commissioner under the relevant rule, and his conclusion rejecting the challenge was based on surrounding circumstances such as the timing of bank drafts, the pattern of bidding, the absence of contemporaneous protest, and the observers' reports. In writ jurisdiction under Article 226, interference with such a fact-finding order was permissible only if the finding was perverse or so unreasonable that it could not have been reached on the record. The High Court's contrary view rested on inferences and conjectures, not on a finding of perversity in the Financial Commissioner's order. The proposed form of re-auction was also found to be unworkable and unsustainable.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in quashing the auction or ordering re-auction, and the Financial Commissioner's order was not shown to be perverse. The challenge to the auction failed.

---