TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1973 (5) TMI 107
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onfirmed the finding of the Consolidation Officer and dismissed the appeal. The petitioners filed a revision. The Deputy Director of Consolidation stated that he had carefully gone through the record of the case in the two courts below and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicants as well as those of the learned counsel for the opposite parties. The arguments put forward before him by the learned counsel for the applicants were not new and were the same which had been put forward before the two learned lower courts. He observed:-- "For the reasons already mentioned in great detail in the orders of both the learned lower courts I do not find any force whatsoever in those arguments, I find myself in agreement with the conclusion drawn and the findings arrived at by the two learned lower courts and I do not find any good justification to interfere with them. I do not even consider it necessary to repeat these points in this order." On this view the revision was dismissed. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed a writ petition in this Court. For the Petitioners it was argued that the Deputy Director of Consolidation was in error in not considering the material....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e inferior authority the order of the superior authority must set out its reasons. (2) In cases where the superior authority merely affirms the order of the inferior authority, and (a) where the order of the inferior authority does not set out its reasons, "the superior authority must disclose its reasons in its order; (b) where the order of the inferior authority sets out the reasons, and (i) where the superior authority finds the reasons of the inferior authority acceptable to it, it need not specify the reasons in its order but may merely refer to the reasons given by the inferior authority or give an outline of the process of reasoning by which it finds itself in agreement with the inferior authority; (ii) where the superior authority does not find the reasons of the inferior authority acceptable to it the superior authority must set out its own reasons its order." 4. The view of this Full Bench was re-affirmed by a Larger Bench in Ram Murti Saran v. State of U. P., AIR 1971 All 54, as well as Prem Prakash Virmani v. State Government, AIR 1971 All 82 5. When an inferior authority records a finding after consideration of the evi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dismissed. But in the course of the judgment the Bench observed that the finding that the ballot papers had not been tampered with may be a finding of fact, but such a finding can be successfully assailed in a writ petition, if it can be shown that the Sub-Divisional Officer had recorded that finding on the basis of some evidence leaving out of consideration other material evidence or circumstances. 8. In view of the actual decision of the Bench these observations were clearly obiter. Moreover, in that case the writ petition was filed against the original court's order. The tribunal of first instance has to consider all material evidence. But as seen above, the position is different in respect of an appellate or revisional order of affirmance, This decision is not applicable to such orders of superior authorities. In support of its view the Bench relied upon Commr. of Income Tax v. Indian Woollen Textiles Mills [1964] 51 ITR 291 (SC) . The Court observed that if the conclusion of the Tribunal was based upon some evidence, ignoring other essential maters, it could not be regarded as a finding not giving rise to a question liable to be referred to the Court. The Court was con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ufficiency of evidence. See Zora Singh v. J. M. Tandon AIR 1971 SC 1537 . 13. On the other hand if a tribunal has disabled itself from reaching a fair decision by some considerations extraneous to the merits of the case or if its conclusion on the very face of it is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person can ever arrive at that conclusion, interference under Article 226 would be justified. See Parry and Co. Ltd. v. P. C. Pal, (1970) IILLJ 429 SC . 14. For the Petitioner reliance was placed upon Hindustan Steels Ltd. v. A. K. Roy, (1970) ILLJ 228 SC . In that case a writ petition was filed directly against the order of an industrial tribunal. The Supreme Court observed that if a statutory tribunal exercises its discretion on the basis of irrelevant considerations or without regard to relevant considerations certiorari may properly issue to quash that order. In other words if a finding is based on no evidence interference can properly be made under Article 226 of the Constitution: Provided of course the Court is satisfied that there has been failure of justice. This case has no material bearing to a situation where a court of fact records a finding after c....