Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.34 seconds)Syed Yakoob vs K.S. Radhakrishnan & Others on 7 October, 1963
14. I have perused the constitutional Bench judgment of the
6
Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of "Syed Yakoob Vs. K.S
Radhakrishnan & Ors." reported in (1964) 5 SCR 64:AIR 1964 SC
477, the relevant part of which reads as under:
Hari Vishnu Kamath vs Syed Ahmad Ishaque And Others on 9 December, 1954
This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact
reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal as result of the
appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or
questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is
apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a
writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may
appear to be. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by
the Tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued if it is
shown that in recording the said finding, the Tribunal
had erroneously refused to admit admissible and
material evidence, or had erroneously admitted
inadmissible evidence which has influenced the
impugned finding. Similarly, if a finding of fact is based
on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of
law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In
dealing with this category of cases, however, we must
always bear in mind that a finding of fact recorded by
the Tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for a
writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and
material evidence adduced before the Tribunal was
insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned
finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on
a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the
said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before a
writ Court. It is within these limits that the jurisdiction
conferred on the High Courts under Article 226 to issue a
writ of certiorari can be legitimately exercised (vide Hari
Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque [(1955) 1 SCR
1104] NagandraNath Bora v. Commissioner of Hills
Division and Appeals Assam [(1958) SCR 1240] and
Kaushalya Devi v. Bachittar Singh [AIR 1960 SC 1168]
Kaushalya Devi And Ors. vs Bachittar Singh And Ors. on 8 April, 1959
This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact
reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal as result of the
appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or
questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is
apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a
writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may
appear to be. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by
the Tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued if it is
shown that in recording the said finding, the Tribunal
had erroneously refused to admit admissible and
material evidence, or had erroneously admitted
inadmissible evidence which has influenced the
impugned finding. Similarly, if a finding of fact is based
on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of
law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In
dealing with this category of cases, however, we must
always bear in mind that a finding of fact recorded by
the Tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for a
writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and
material evidence adduced before the Tribunal was
insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned
finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on
a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the
said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before a
writ Court. It is within these limits that the jurisdiction
conferred on the High Courts under Article 226 to issue a
writ of certiorari can be legitimately exercised (vide Hari
Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque [(1955) 1 SCR
1104] NagandraNath Bora v. Commissioner of Hills
Division and Appeals Assam [(1958) SCR 1240] and
Kaushalya Devi v. Bachittar Singh [AIR 1960 SC 1168]
Ashok Kumar Gupta (Dead ) Through Lrs vs Smt. Gauri Bagchi 32 Cont/1196/2019 ... on 28 February, 2020
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has put reliance on the
judgment rendered by this Court in the case of "Ashok Kumar Gupta
Vs. the State of Jharkhand & Ors." [W.P.(C) No. 2725 of 2001].
It was held in the said case that the confiscating authority had
committed error in not determining the vital issue as to whether the
stone chips was being removed from the raiyati land or from the forest
land. The prosecution report prepared by the Forester could not have
been treated as sacrosanct so as not to make any enquiry from his level
with regard to the place of mining.
1