SUPREME COURT OF INDIA while remanding the case n re: ASST. COMMR. OF COMMERCIAL TAX DEPT. vs. SHUKLA & BROTHERS in C.A.. No.   .3289 of 2010 on 15.4.2010, held as follows: -

QUOTE: The increasing institution of cases in all Courts in India and the resultant burden upon the Courts has invited attention of all concerned in the justice administratin system. Despite heavy quantum of cases in Courts, in our view, it would neither be permssible nor possble to state as a principle in law, that whle exercising power of judicial review on admnistrative action and more particularly judgement of courts in appeal before the higher Court, providing of reasons can never be dispensed with. The doctrne of audi alterampartem has three basic essentials. Firstly, a person against whom any order is required to be passedor whose rights are likely to be affected adverselymust be granted an opportunity of being heard. Secondly, the concerned authoirity should provide a fair and transparent procedure and lastly, the authority concerned must apply its mind and dispose of the matter by a reasoned or speaking order.This has been uniformly applied by Courts in India and abroad.

In exercise of the powe of judicial review, the concept of reasoned orders/actions has been enforced equally by the foreign courts as by the courts in India. The administrative authoirtyand tribunals are obliged to give reasons, absence whereof could render the order liable to judicial chastise. Thus, it will not be far from absolute priniple of law that the Courts should record reasonsfor its conclusions to enable the appellate or higher Courts to exercise their jurisdiction appropriately and in accordance with law. UNQUOTE

[for full text of the judgement, please visit http://taxesinindia.com  and click on the ctation taxind_2010_sc_ca_3289]

VENKATRAMAN RAGGHUPATHY, Web admin.

SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENTS administrative action, judicial review, proper reasning

The High Court of Delhi, while deciding the W.P. © No. 14869 of 2004, on 13/02/2009, in re : UAE EXCHANGE CENTRE LTD vs U.O.I. observed as follows : -

QUOTE : We would like to touch upon the well engrafted principles, with respect to, the exercise of writ jurisdiction by Courts, in such like matters. Essentially, when superior courts exercise the power of judicial review in respect of orders, deisions or, as in the instant case, a ruling of administrative quasi-judicial authority or a judicial authority, it looks at the decision making process and not at the decision itself. A superior court is not expected to substitute its view with that of the authority whose decision is impugned before it as long as the view taken by the authority, is a plausible view which is free from errors of jurisdiction or errors apparent on the face of the record. The statement of law on this aspect of the matter, in respect of a quasi-judicial authority, has been very aptly enunciated in the judgement of seven Judges of the Supreme Court in the case of UJJAN BAI vs. STATE OF U.P. [AIR 1962 SC 1621 at page 1629 (para 15) reads as follows : -

“where a quasi judicial authority has jurisdiction to decide a matter, it does not lose its jurisdiction by coming to a wrong conclusion, whether it is wrong in law or in fact.”

It is now fairly well settled that superior courts can issue a WRIT OF CERTIORARI where there is an error of law which is apparent on the face of record as these are akin to errors of jurisdiction as against mere errors of law. The statement of law in HALSBURYS LAWS OF ENGLAND (4th Edition. Vol.1 ( 1) Para 73 Page 127) best captures the accepted position in law. UNQUOTE

[for full text of the judgement please visit http://www.taxesinindia.com and click on the citation taxind_2009_hc_del_wpc_14869]

HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT

 VENKATRAMAN RAGGHUPATHY, Web admin.

HIGH COURT JUDGEMENTS errors apparent, judicial review, writ, writ jurisdiction, WRIT OF CERTIORARI