Writ interference with fact findings is limited; omission to discuss some evidence does not by itself justify Article 226 review.

A writ court under Article 226 cannot reappraise evidence or interfere with concurrent fact findings merely because an affirming appellate or revisional order does not discuss every item of contrary material. Interference is justified only where the finding is based on no evidence, is perverse, ignores a vital plea or material evidence affecting the result, or shows a manifest error of law causing failure of justice. If the original fact-finding authority has considered the evidence, a general affirmance need not restate the entire record or separately answer each contrary circumstance. Mere non-reference to some evidence, by itself, is not enough for interference.

---

---

Issues: Whether an order or finding based on evidence can be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution when some material evidence is not referred to, and whether omission by an appellate or revisional authority to mention contrary evidence amounts to non-consideration warranting interference.

Analysis: A writ court does not sit in appeal over findings of fact and cannot reappraise evidence merely because the order of affirmance does not expressly discuss every item of material or contrary evidence. Interference is justified only where the finding is based on no evidence, is perverse, ignores a vital plea or material evidence affecting the result, or otherwise discloses a manifest error of law apparent on the face of the record leading to failure of justice. Where the original fact-finding authority has considered the evidence and the appellate or revisional authority affirms that finding, a general order of affirmance need not restate the entire evidence or separately deal with every contrary circumstance.

Conclusion: Mere non-reference to some material or contrary evidence in an affirming appellate or revisional order does not, by itself, justify interference under Article 226; interference lies only where the omission amounts to ignoring vital material or produces a perverse result causing failure of justice.

---