- (1.) HEARD Shri Shiv Ram Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned State Counsel and perused the record. Facts in brief of the present case are that initially for redressal of their grievances parties had approached the Consolidation Officer who decided the matter by order dated 23.1.2006 (Annexure No.2). Aggrieved by the said order, three appeals were filed before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Bahraich namely Appeal Nos.567 "Lallu Ram & Ors. vs. Shatrohan & Ors., 574 "Kheduram & Ors. vs. Shatrohan & Ors." and 579 "Ram Vilas vs. Shatrohan & Ors.". In one of the appeal, an application has been moved before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Bahraich for summoning the register no.8 in order to compare the Will deed with the sale deed. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the records on the point in question, by means of the order dated 24.8.2006, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Bahraich rejected the said application with the following findings:- "[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]" Aggrieved by the said facts, petitioners along with five other persons filed three revisions under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation and Holdings, Act. In addition to the one revision filed by the present petitioner, two other revisions were also filed. By means of the order dated 31.10.2006, the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bahraich dismissed the revisions in question filed by the petitioners with the following observations:- [VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]" In addition to the above observations, while dismissing the revision, the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bahraich has also given a finding to the effect that against the interlocutory order dated 24.8.2006 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Bahraich thereby rejecting the application for summoning register no.8, the revisions are not maintainable, thus the finding and reason given by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bahraich as well as Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Bahraich while rejecting the petitioners' case for summoning register no.8 do not suffer any infirmity or illegality an no interference is needed in the matter in question while exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as in the case of Council of Civil Service Unions (CCSU) v. Minister for the Civil Service [1984] 3 All ER 935, the scope of judicial review has been held by Lord Diplock is stated as under:- "Judicial Review has I think developed to a stage today when, without reiterating any analysis of the steps by which the development has come about, one can conveniently classify under three heads the grounds on which administrative action is subject to control by judicial review. The first ground I would call 'illegality', the second 'irrationality' and the third 'procedural impropriety'. By 'illegality' as a ground for judicial review I mean that the decision-maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision-making power and must give effect to it. Whether he has or not is par excellence a justiciable question to be decided, in the event of dispute, by those persons, the judges, by whom the judicial power of the State is exercisable. By 'irrationality' I mean what can by now be succinctly referred to as 'Wednesbury unreasonableness'. It applies to a decision which is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it. Whether a decision falls within this category is a question that judges by their training and experience should be well equipped to answer or else there would be something badly wrong with our judicial system... I have described the third head as 'procedural impropriety' rather than failure to observe basic rules of natural justice or failure to act with procedural fairness towards the person who will be affected by the decision. This is because susceptibility to judicial review under this head covers also failure by an administrative tribunal to observe procedural rules that are expressly laid down in the legislative instrument by which its jurisdiction is conferred, even where such failure does not involve any denial of natural justice." Hon'ble the Apex Court has held in the case of Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651, this Court identified the grounds of judicial review of administrative action in the following words : "The duty of the court is to confine itself to the question of legality. Its concern should be : 1. Whether a decision-making authority exceeded its powers? 2. Committed an error of law, 3. committed a breach of the rules of natural justice, 4. reached a decision which no reasonable tribunal would have reached or, 5. abused its powers. Therefore, it is not for the court to determine whether a particular policy or particular decision taken in the fulfilment of that policy is fair. It is only concerned with the manner in which those decisions have been taken. The extent of the duty to act fairly will vary from case to case. Shortly put, the grounds upon which an administrative action is subject to control by judicial review can be classified as under : (I) Illegality : This means the decision-maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision- making power and must give effect to it. (ii) Irrationality, namely, Wednesbury unreasonableness. (iii) Procedural impropriety."
(2.) RECENTLY , Ho'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Heinz India Private Ltd. And another vs. State of U.P. and Ors. (2012) 5 Supreme Court Cases 443 after placing the reliance on the judgment of Reid Vs. Secy. Of State for Scotland (1999) 1 ALL ER 481 (HL) held that Judicial review involves a challenge to the legal validity of the decision. It does not allow the court of review to examine the evidence with a view to forming its own view about the substantial merits of the case. It may be that the tribunal whose decision is being challenged has done something which it had no lawful authority to do. It may have abused or misused the authority which it had. It may have departed from the procedures which either by statute or at common law as a matter of fairness it ought to have observed. As regards the decisions itself it may be found to be perverse or irrational or grossly disproportionate to what was required. Or the decision may be found to be erroneous in respect of a legal deficiency, as for example, through the absence of evidence, or of sufficient evidence, to support it, or through account being taken of irrelevant matter, or through a failure for any reason to take account of a relevant matter, or through some misconstruction of the terms of the statutory provision which the decision maker is required to apply. But while the evidence may have to be explored in order to see if the decision is vitiated by such legal deficiencies it is perfectly clear that in case of review, as distinct from an ordinary appeal, the court may not set about forming its own preferred view of evidence. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. No order as to costs.;