Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court at Goa dismissed a writ petition challenging orders passed by statutory authorities under the Goa Panchayat Raj Act. The Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate jurisdictional errors, violation of natural justice, or perversity in the orders. It emphasized:
“Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is supervisory, not appellate; the Court does not reweigh evidence or substitute its own conclusions for those of the competent authority.”
Accordingly, the petition was dismissed and the orders of the lower authorities were upheld.
Facts
The petitioner challenged orders of the Director of Panchayats and the State authorities arising from a dispute under the Goa Panchayat Raj framework. The grievance related to alleged irregularities in permissions granted and decisions taken at the panchayat level. The petitioner contended that the authorities had ignored material evidence, acted beyond jurisdiction, and violated procedural safeguards.
The respondents, including the State and concerned local authorities, maintained that the proceedings were conducted lawfully, following statutory provisions. They argued that the petitioner had alternate remedies under the Act but instead invoked writ jurisdiction to re-agitate factual disputes.
Issues
- Whether the statutory orders suffered from jurisdictional errors or violation of natural justice.
- Whether the High Court, under Article 226, could interfere with findings of fact recorded by competent authorities.
- Whether the petitioner had established grounds of perversity or arbitrariness warranting judicial review.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that the orders passed by the Director of Panchayats and the State authority were vitiated by non-application of mind and procedural irregularities. It was contended that the authorities ignored crucial documents and evidence, thereby rendering the orders perverse.
It was further urged that principles of natural justice were violated as the petitioner was denied a fair opportunity of being heard. The petitioner relied upon the doctrine that orders passed in violation of natural justice are void. He submitted that once fundamental procedural safeguards are breached, writ jurisdiction can and must be exercised to protect rights.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondents argued that the petition was essentially an attempt to re-open factual findings, which is impermissible in writ jurisdiction. They stressed that the authorities had acted strictly within jurisdiction, after providing adequate hearing to all parties.
The respondents contended that the High Court’s role is supervisory, not appellate, and that adequacy of evidence cannot be examined. They relied on the principle that as long as some evidence supports the conclusion of the authority, the High Court should not interfere.
It was also pointed out that alternate remedies under the Panchayat Raj Act were available, and writ jurisdiction should not be invoked to bypass statutory procedures.
Analysis of the Law
The Court reiterated the settled principle that judicial review under Article 226 is confined to examining the decision-making process, not the merits of the decision itself. Unless orders are shown to be ultra vires, passed without jurisdiction, or in violation of natural justice, the Court cannot substitute its own assessment of facts.
The Court observed that in the present case, the petitioner was given ample opportunity to present his case. The statutory authorities considered the evidence and recorded findings. Merely because the petitioner disagreed with the findings could not justify interference.
Precedent Analysis
The Court referred to several judgments to clarify the scope of judicial review:
- State of Uttar Pradesh v. Man Mohan Nath Sinha (2009) 8 SCC 310 – High Court cannot reappraise evidence in writ jurisdiction.
- State of A.P. v. S. Sree Rama Rao (AIR 1963 SC 1723) – Judicial review limited to legality of procedure, not merits of findings.
- State of A.P. v. Chitra Venkata Rao (1975) 2 SCC 557 – Departmental authorities are the sole judges of facts; High Court’s role is supervisory.
These authorities were relied upon to stress that writ courts cannot function as appellate forums to reassess evidence.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court held that the petitioner’s case essentially rested on a challenge to factual findings, which is not permissible under Article 226. It found that the authorities had:
- Jurisdiction to decide the dispute.
- Followed statutory procedure.
- Granted opportunity of hearing.
- Based their findings on some evidence.
As none of the grounds for judicial review—such as violation of natural justice, perversity, or arbitrariness—were made out, the Court declined to interfere.
Conclusion
The writ petition was dismissed. The High Court reaffirmed that:
“So long as statutory authorities act within jurisdiction, follow procedure, and base findings on evidence, writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked as a substitute for appeal.”
Implications
This judgment reaffirms limits of writ jurisdiction in service and administrative matters. Litigants cannot use Article 226 to re-argue facts already decided by statutory authorities. The ruling underscores judicial restraint, emphasizing that unless illegality or perversity is demonstrated, High Courts will not interfere.
It provides clarity for future disputes under the Goa Panchayat Raj Act and similar frameworks: remedies must primarily be sought through statutory appellate and revisional forums.
FAQs
Q1. Can the High Court re-examine evidence under Article 226?
No. The Court reiterated that writ jurisdiction is supervisory, not appellate. Findings based on some evidence cannot be reappraised.
Q2. When can writ jurisdiction be invoked against statutory orders?
Only when orders suffer from jurisdictional error, breach of natural justice, or perversity. Mere disagreement with findings is insufficient.
Q3. Does availability of alternate remedies affect writ jurisdiction?
Yes. Where alternate remedies exist, writ jurisdiction is sparingly exercised. Parties should exhaust statutory remedies first.