Supreme Court on extent of judicial interference in an administrative decision involving disputed questions of fact

On December 5, 2018, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India passed a judgment in the matter of Sanjay Kumar Jha v. Prakash Chandra Chaudhary and Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 11857-11859 of 2018). Issue What is the extent to which a Court, in its writ jurisdiction, is permitted to interfere with an administrative decision, especially where the facts in question are disputed? Facts in brief On August 19, 2011, the Indian Oil Corporation issued an advertisement inviting applications for its retail outlet dealerships in respect of diesel, petrol, lubricant, oils etc. at different locations, including a retail outlet at Giriyama, Bihar. Pursuant to such advertisement, both Mr. Sanjay Kumar Jha (‘the Appellant’) and Mr. Prakash Chandra Chaudhary (‘the Respondent’) applied for the dealership of the Giriyama retail outlet. After consideration of various parameters as specified in a brochure published by the Indian Oil Corporation in this regard, the Appellant was allotted the Giriyama retail outlet. The Respondent challenged the said allotment to the Appellant and filed a writ petition in the Hon’ble High Court at Patna. The main issue that came up before the Single Bench of the Hon’ble Patna High Court was whether the land of the Respondent was within one kilometre of a particular well-defined road in the Giriyama Mauza, and if so, whether the Respondent ought to have been awarded more marks on that parameter. The Single Bench held that the Respondent’s land was within this particular area and therefore the Respondent ought to have been awarded more marks on this count, thus declaring the Respondent as the candidate with the highest marks. The Single Bench went on to hold that the said Respondent was entitled to be awarded the dealership of the Giriyama retail outlet. The Appellant thereafter filed an appeal before the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court at Patna, which was dismissed by order dated April 24, 2017, passed by the Division Bench. Being aggrieved, the Appellant filed the instant appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against such judgment of the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court at Patna. Judgement The Hon’ble Supreme Court noted that the Single Bench of the Hon’ble Patna High Court, in arriving at its finding, ignored the report of the Revenue Authorities, including the District Magistrate, that the land of the Respondent was situated at a distance of 800 meters from Giriyama chowk towards Falka, which is within Falka but outside the limits of Giriyama. The Hon’ble Supreme Court went on to observe that it is well settled that in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court does not adjudicate, upon affidavits, disputed questions of fact. In arriving at the decision that the land of the Respondent was located within the Giriyama Mauza the Single Bench embarked upon adjudication of a hotly disputed factual issue, which the High Court ought not to do while exercising its writ jurisdiction. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed that even assuming that the Respondent had erroneously been awarded lower marks on this account, the decision of the Single Bench does not disclose the process of reasoning for arriving at the conclusion that the Respondent would otherwise have become the candidate with highest marks, as there were various other parameters at play which were considered by Indian Oil Corporation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court thus went on to hold that, “It is well settled that proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court cannot sit as a Court of Appeal over the findings recorded by a competent administrative authority, nor reappreciate evidence for itself to correct the error of fact, that does not go to the root of jurisdiction. The High Court does not ordinarily interfere with the findings of fact based on evidence and substitute its own findings, which the High Court has done in this case. Even assuming that there had been any error in the computation of marks in respect of fixed and movable assets, the High Court could, at best, have remitted the case of respondent Prakash Chandra Chaudhary to the concerned authorities for reconsideration.” The Hon’ble Supreme Court thus allowed the appeal filed by the Appellant. Download Pdf