Article 136 Interference Not Called For Merely Because A Different View About High Court's Judgment Is Possible : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has reiterated that intervention under Article 136 of the Constitution is not called for merely because a different view about the High Court's judgment is possible.

A bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and S Ravindra Bhat made this observation while dismissing an appeal challenging a judgment of the Kerala High Court in a case related to vesting of private forests (State of Kerala v. Popular Estates).

While declining interference with the factual findings entered by the High Court, the Supreme Court observed :

"There is some authority for the proposition that where two plausible views on the conclusions that can be drawn from facts on the record exist, this court, in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution would not interfere with the findings of the High Court".

In this regard, the judgment authored by Justice Ravindra Bhat referred to the precedents Pritam Singh v. The State 1950 SCR 453, Tirupati Balaji Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Stateof Bihar (2004) 5 SCC 1, Jamshed Hormusji Wadia v. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai (2004) 3 SCC 214,  Union of India v. Gangadhar Narsingdas Agarwal & Anr (1997) 10 SCC 305,  Jai Mangal Oraon v. Mira Nayak (Smt) & Ors (2000) 5 SCC 141.

Article 136 - Direct Appeal From HC Single Bench Orders Maintainable In Cases Of 'Glaring Errors & Injustices' : Supreme Court

The Court observed :

"...in Union of India v. Gangadhar Narsingdas Agarwal & Anr, this court, declining to interfere with the order of the High Court in exercise of its power under Article 136 of the Constitution, said that even if two views are possible, the view taken by the High Court being a plausible one, it would not call for intervention by this court. A similar view was expressed in Jai Mangal Oraon v. Mira Nayak (Smt) & Ors, wherein this court held that when there was nothing illegal and wrong in the reasoning and conclusions arrived at by the High Court and it appeared to be merited and in accordance with the interpretation of statutory provisions, this court would not interfere with the order of the High Court under Article 136 of the Constitution"

The judgment quoted from Taherakhatoon (D) By Lrs. v.Salambin Mohammad  (1992) 2 SCC 635 as follows :

"...even though we are now dealing with the appeal after grant of special leave, we are not bound to go into merits and even if we do so and declare the law or point out the error- still we may not interfere if the justice of the case on facts does not require interference or if we feel that the relief could be moulded in a different fashion."

Also held in the judgment :  Taluk Land Board's Determination Has Evidentiary Value In Proceedings Under Kerala Private Forest Vesting Act : Supreme Court