Question of law for High Court reference failed where the challenge only sought reappraisal of evidence.

Questions framed for reference to the High Court were rejected because they merely sought a reappraisal of the Tribunal's evidentiary findings. The order under challenge rested on appreciation of the record, including the view that the material was insufficient to establish clandestine removal. As no independent question of law emerged from the proposed questions, the reference application was not maintainable and was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the proposed questions gave rise to a referable question of law for reference to the High Court.

Analysis: The order under challenge was founded on appreciation of evidence, including the Tribunal's view that the material on record was insufficient to establish clandestine removal. The application sought a reappraisal of that evidentiary assessment and did not disclose an independent question of law warranting reference.

Conclusion: No question of law arose for reference and the reference application was rejected.

---