Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs Dilbahar Singh CA 6177 OF 2004
http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=41852
Conflicting views of coordinate three Judge Benches of the Apex Court as to the meaning, ambit and scope of the expression "legality and propriety"and whether in revisional jurisdiction the High Court can re-appreciate the evidence resulted in a reference to a a larger bench (of five judges).
Facts : Provisions of Rent Control Act of Haryana, Tamil Nadu and Kerala states in issue.
Issue : extent, scope, ambit and meaning of the terms “legality or propriety”, “regularity, correctness, legality or propriety” and “legality, regularity or propriety” under the said Act.
Decision : After referring to the law on the subject as prevailing, the Apex Court observed :
27. The ordinary meaning of the word ‘legality’ is lawfulness. It refers to strict adherence to law, prescription, or doctrine; the quality of being legal.
28. The term ‘propriety’ means fitness; appropriateness, aptitude; suitability; appropriateness to the circumstances or condition conformity with requirement; rules or principle, rightness, correctness, justness, accuracy.
29. The terms ‘correctness’ and ‘propriety’ ordinarily convey the same meaning, that is, something which is legal and proper. In its ordinary meaning and substance, ‘correctness’ is compounded of ‘legality’ and ‘propriety’ and that which is legal and proper is ‘correct’.
30. The expression “regularity” with reference to an order ordinarily relates to the procedure being followed in accord with the principles of natural justice and fair play.
Referring to the three statutes in issue, the court said at Para 31 : "...None of these statutes confers on revisional authority the power as wide as that of appellate court or appellate authority despite such power being wider than that provided in Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The provision under consideration does not permit the High Court to invoke the revisional jurisdiction as the cloak of an appeal in disguise. Revision does not lie under these provisions to bring the orders of the Trial Court/Rent Controller and appellate Court/Appellate Authority for re-hearing of the issues raised in the original proceedings."
While affirming the view in Lakshmi(supra) the court said at Para 32 : "...The use of two expressions “appeal” and “revision” when used in one statute conferring appellate power and revisional power, we think, is not without purpose and significance. Ordinarily, appellate jurisdiction involves a re-hearing while it is not so in the case of revisional jurisdiction when the same statute provides the remedy by way of an ‘appeal’ and so also of a ‘revision’. If that were so, the revisional power would become co-extensive with that of the trial Court or the subordinate Tribunal which is never the case."
While approving the view in Dattona(supra) the court said "....We are of the view that in the garb of revisional jurisdiction under the above three Rent Control Statutes, the High Court is not conferred a status of second Court of first appeal and the High Court should not enlarge the scope of revisional jurisdiction to that extent."
The court distinguished the decision in Ram(supra) at Para 33 : "...it rightly observes that revisional power is subject to well-known limitations inherent in all revisional jurisdictions and the matter essentially turns on the language of the statute investing the jurisdiction. We do not think that there can ever be objection to the above statement."
Dealing with the controversy centers round the following observation in Ram Dass (supra), “...that jurisdiction enables the Court of revision, in appropriate cases, to examine the correctness of the findings of facts also...”, Apex Court clarified that "... the expression used conferring revisional jurisdiction is “legality and propriety”, the High Court has wider jurisdiction obviously means that the power of revision vested in the High Court in the statute is wider than the power conferred on it under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure; it is not confined to the jurisdictional error alone. However, in dealing with the findings of fact, the examination of findings of fact by the High Court is limited to satisfy itself that the decision is “according to law”.""
At Para 39, the court approved the view in Rukmini (supra) "the word “propriety” does not confer power upon the High Court to re-appreciate evidence to come to a different conclusion but its consideration of evidence is confined to find out legality, regularity and propriety of the order impugned before it."
43. .....High Court can interfere with incorrect finding of fact must be understood in the context where such finding is perverse, based on no evidence or misreading of the evidence or such finding has been arrived at by ignoring or overlooking the material evidence or such finding is so grossly erroneous that if allowed to stand, will occasion in miscarriage of justice.
44. ....A finding of fact recorded by Court/Authority below, if perverse or has been arrived at
without consideration of the material evidence or such finding is based on no evidence or misreading of the evidence or is grossly erroneous that, if allowed to stand, it would result in gross miscarriage of justice, is open to correction because it is not treated as a finding according to law. In that event, the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under the above Rent Control Acts shall be entitled to set aside the impugned order as being not legal or proper. The High Court is entitled to satisfy itself the correctness or legality or propriety of any decision or order impugned before it as indicated above. However, to
satisfy itself to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of the impugned decision or the order, the High Court shall not exercise its power as an appellate power to re-appreciate or re-assess the evidence for coming to a different finding on facts. Revisional power is not and cannot be equated with the power of reconsideration of all questions of fact as a court of first appeal. Where the High Court is required to be satisfied that the decision is according to law, it may examine whether the order impugned before it suffers from procedural illegality or irregularity.
Legal Principles :
Power of High Court to reappreciate evidence in reviional jurisiction is - in order to find out that the finding of facts are based on firm legal basis and are not given on a wrong premise of law.
Revisional power cannot be equated with the power of re-consideration of all questions of fact as a Court of first appeal.
Cases discussed by the Apex Court :
Rukmini Amma Saradamma v. Kallyani Sulochana and others; [(1993) 1 SCC 499]
[2] Ram Dass v. Ishwar Chander and others; [AIR 1988 SC 1422]
[3] Moti Ram v. Suraj Bhan and others; [AIR 1960 SC 655]
[4] Dattonpant Gopalvarao Devakate v. Vithalrao Maruthirao Janagaval;
[(1975) 2 SCC 246]
[5] M/s. Sri Raja Lakshmi Dyeing Works and others v. Rangaswamy
Chettiar; [(1980) 4 SCC 259]
[6] P.R Krishnamachari v. Lalitha Ammal; [1987 (Supp) SCC 250]
[7] H.V. Mathai v. Subordinate Judge, Kottayam; [(1969) 2 SCC 194]
[8] Rai Chand Jain v. Miss Chandra Kanta Khosla; [(1991) 1 SCC 422]
[9] Dr. D. Sankaranarayanan v. Punjab National Bank; [1995 Supp. (4) SCC 675]
[10] Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta; [(1999) 6 SCC 222]
[11] Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani and Ors.; [(1999) 1 SCC 141]
[12] M.S. Zahed v. K. Raghavan; [(1999) 1 SCC 439]
[13] Central Tobacco Company v. Chandra Prakash; [1969 UJ 432]
[14] Bhoolchand and Anr. v. Kay Pee Cee Investments and Anr.; [(1991) 1 SCC 343]
[15] Ubaiba v. Damodaran; [(1999) 5 SCC 645]
[16] T. Sivasubramaniam and Ors. v. Kasinath Pujari and Ors.; [(1999) 7 SCC 275]
[17] Ramdoss v. K. Thangavelu; [(2000) 2 SCC 135]
[18] Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. v. Govindas Purushothamdas and Anr.; [(2001) 3 SCC 445]
[19] V.M. Mohan v. Prabha Rajan Dwarka and Ors.; [(2006) 9 SCC 606]
