Unsupported factual findings can raise a referable question of law and justify mandamus to compel a case stated.

A finding described as factual may still give rise to a question of law where it is shown to rest on no material, conjecture, or an unsupported record. Here, the reduction of allowance for timber shortage was not shown to have any clear evidentiary basis, and the Tribunal had merely endorsed it as fair. On that footing, the dispute was treated as referable to the High Court, and mandamus was considered appropriate to compel the Tribunal to state the case on the framed question.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing the Tribunal to refer the proposed question to the High Court when the finding that the timber shortage was excessive was assailed as unsupported by material or evidence.

Analysis: The applications arose from the Tribunal's refusal to state a case on the ground that the dispute concerned only a finding of fact. The Court noted that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had reduced the allowance for timber shortage without any clear basis in the record, and the Tribunal had merely approved that reduction as fair. Where a fact-finding conclusion is prima facie shown to rest on no material, or on conjecture rather than evidence, the matter gives rise to a question of law fit for reference.

Conclusion: A mandamus was warranted and the Tribunal was directed to refer the framed question to the High Court.

Ratio Decidendi: A finding of fact said to be unsupported by evidence, or reached by conjecture rather than material on record, can raise a referable question of law, and the High Court may compel a reference by mandamus.

---