Appeal No 333 of 1969
Appeal by Special Leave from the Order dated the 22 8 1968 the Punjab and Haryana High Court in LPA No 427 of 1968
B Sen and HK Puri for the appellant SK Mehta PN Puri and KRNagaraja
for respondent No 5
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BEG J
This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgement of a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab  Haryana
dismissing in litnine an appeal against a judgment and order of a 123 learned single Judge of that Court by which a Writ Petition made to the High Court had been granted
We have been taken through the very detailed judgment of the learned single Judge where all the relevant facts are considered in detail
The questions which have been raised before us are firstly whether the learned single judge was justified in considering the facts of the case and recording certain findings of fact without having even the advantage  of the record of the proceedings of the Deputy Chief Settle ment Commissioner and other officers who had given certain other findings in favour of the appellant secondly whether the learned single Judge s findings of fact are correct and thirdly whether any such apparent error was disclosed in the proceedings of the authorities acting under the Refugees Rehabilitation and Settlement Act as to justify interference by the High Court
It was urged that a mistake apparent on the face of the record has to be one which does not necessitate delving deep into facts on record to discov er it after a re examination of questions of fact which ought to be left to the authorities empowered to give these findings
It is true that the High Court does not sit as a Court of appeal to substitute its own judgment for that of the authorities which are empowered to give their decisions in such cases
Apart from jurisdictional errors the High Court may correct errors apparent on the face of the record
An error to be apparent must according to a rough test laid down by this Court in SL Hedge  Ors
vs MB Tirumale1 be one which does not take prolonged arguments to bring it to the surface
These propositions are quite well estab lished
It is however also a settled rule of practice of this Court not to interfere with the exercise of discretionary powers of High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution merely because two views are possible upon the facts of a case
Furthermore in order to induce this Court to inter fere under Article 136 of the Constitution the the question must involve at least a matter of public or general importance or the injustice suffered by an individual due to an error of law should be so gross as to touch the con science of this Court in which case it would be deemed to be one of more than private importance
The case before us is one of a competition between two auction purchasers of the same property put up for sale at two different auctions by the Managing Officer Amritsar
The first was in favour of the respondent Smt
Rup Kaur held on 20th August 1959 and the second in favour of
Beant Singh the appellant held on 10th May 1961 on the assumption that the first auction could be cancelled
The broad material facts apparent from the original official record which is now before us are stated below
At the auction sale on 20th August 1959 held by the Managing Officer Amritsar Rup Kaur s bid of Rs 32000  being the highest was accepted and this fact was communi cated to her by a letter dated 1 1960 1 SCR 890
124 11th September 1959 sent through her son and general attorney MS Grewal
This letter was in the following terms Dear SirMadam I am to inform you that your bid for Rs 32000Rupees thirty two thousands only in respect of property No B XII 18 S 14 Portion I and III Hide Market Amritsar has been accepted as per terms and conditions of the auction
You have executed an indemnity bond in lieu of the earnest money due from you for adjustment against the compensation admissible on your verified claims
For this purpose please furnish if you have not already done at the time of auction the registration number of your compensation application so as to reach this office within seven days of the issue of this letter
In case you intend to associate any other claimants with you in the purchase of the above mentioned property you should also submit affidavits of association duly completed by you and by each of your asso ciates as per specimen attached to this office within the period specified above
The balance of the purchase money if any found due from you after scrutiny of your compensation application and that of your associates will be communicated to you in due course
Yours faithfully Sd District Rent  Managing Officer Amri tsar
The above mentioned letter showed that the contesting re spondent being a displaced person had executed an indemnity bond and had to furnish some information so that adjustment of the compensation due to her may be made against the amount which she had to deposit
What was that information On the margin of the front page of this letter is a partial ly illegible writing running from top to bottom of the printed full scap sheet on the original record With some difficulty the following part only can be read You are required to submit the following documents regarding provi sional possession within seven days from the receipt of this letter failing which your case wilt be   After will be nothing is found written
It is disputed between the parties whether this writing in hand of the margin existed on the letter received by Smt
Rup Kaur s attorney
Howev er even looking at the copy on the original record the meaning is not at all intelligible
If it existed it could only confuse and not enlighten the recipient as to what was to be done
An order was then passed on 8th March 1961 which runs as follows 125 ORDER Smt
Roop Kaur through her attorney Shri MS Grewal the auction purchaser of unit No BXIII 18 S 14 Portion I and III Hide Market Amritsar has failed to deposit the balance sale price amounting to Rs 28000 in spite of issue of registered notice for 2 1 61
Her bid is therefore cancelled and earnest money forfeited
Settlement Officer Jullndur may be requested to deduct Rs 3200 as earnest money out of CA No PJI0110
The applicant may be informed accordingly and property disposed of in the next sale programme
Announced
Dated 8 3 61
Sd Distt
Rent  Managing Officer Am ritsar
This order does not state that parties were duly heard
It is disputed whether the notice mentioned in it alleged to have been sent to Smt
Rup Kaur on 18 12 1960 asking her to
appear on 2 1 1961 was received by the contesting respond ent  Even if the learned Single Judge s finding that it was not received at all by her were not correct the time fixed for her appearance was too short
Furthermore the allega tion that she had been called upon presumably by the letter dated 11 9 1959 to deposit Rs 28000 was on the face of it untrue
Despite a report in her favour by the Regional Settlement Commissioner who investigated the facts and reported to the Chief Settlement Commissioner that she had not been properly served justice was denied to her by the Chief Settlement Commissioner on 26 6 1963
The learned single Judge had examined the facts and pointed out other obvious illegalities at earlier stages showing that provisions of Rules 90 and 92 and 105 of the Displaced Persons Compensation  Rehabilitation Rules 1955 were not complied with in cancelling the sale
According to Rup Kaur who filed some application on 9th May 1961 when she learnt what had happened she had also filed an appeal against the order of 8th March 1961 and made a request for extension of time for payment of the balance of the purchase money but on 14th June 1961 the following order was passed by the Assistant Settlement Commissioner on her appeal This is an appeal against the order of Distt
Rent  Managing Officer Amritsar dated 8 3 61 whereby he cancelled the appellants bid and forfeited the earnest money on account of his failure to deposit the balance price of property No B XIII 18 S 14 Portion I  III Hide Market Amritsar purchased by him at the open auction within the specified time
For all intents and purposes this appeal is for extension of time to deposit the balance purchase price
126 Extension of time is an administrative matter for which no judicial action is called for
Dismissed
Inform the appellant accordingly
The learned Single Judge pointed out that the above mentioned order of the Appellate authority was also void for contravening the provisions of Rule 105 as interpreted by a Full Bench of the High Court of Punjab in Hira Lal Kher vs The Chief Settlement Commissioner New Delhi1 so that it was the duty of the Settlement Commissioner to fix a date for hearing and to inform the appellant it was not discharged
Apparently the appeal was decided without informing the contesting respondent Smt
Rup Kaur when her appeal would be heard
Rule 105 which was thus contra vened provides 105
Provisions of Order XLI of the Code of Civil procedure apply to appeals and revisions
Except as otherwise expressly provided in the Act or in these rules the procedure laid down in order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 Act V of 1908 shall
so far as may be applicable apply to the hearing and disposal of appeals and revisions and the Act
Furthermore extension of time was not just an adminis trative matter
The question whether Rup Kaur had made out a case for it or not should have been quasi judicially considered and decided
Indeed if provisions of the Civil Procedure Code were applied to these appeals and extension of time was only a relief sought the discretion to grant it or refuse it had to be judicially and judiciously exercised
The order was made on an apparently wrong assumption
The learned single Judge had restored the position to what it was when the letter dated 11th September 1959 was received by MS Grewal the son and general attorney of Rup Kaur and had directed the Managing Officer to proceed in accordance with Law
After having heard Learned Counsel for both sides at some length we are not satisfied that any injustice has been done to the appellant who will no doubt get back whatever money he may have deposited
We think that in the circumstances of the case it could not be said that the learned single Judge s conclusion that provisions of Rule 90 had not been complied with in dealing with the case of Rup Kaur who had suffered injustice was erroneous
The learned Judge had stated his conclusion as follows A mere reading of the above quoted provision shows that one of the conditions precedent entitling the Rehabilitation Authorities to cancel the sale and to forfeit the initial deposit is the service on the auction purchaser of a notice specified in sub rule 11 sub rule 12 or sub rule 13 of rule
The petitioner admittedly complied with the requirement of the notice under sub rule 12 of rule 90 Annexure F and no notice in terms of the requirements of subrule 13 of rule 90 was ever admittedly issued to or 1 127 served on the petitioner
In these circumstances the Rehabilitation Authorities has no jurisdiction whatsoever for cancelling the sale in favour of the petitioner on account of alleged non payment of the balance of the purchase price and for forfeiting the initial deposit made by her
In this view of the matter the impugned orders cancelling the sale in favour of the petitioner and forfeiting her initial deposit are wholly without jurisdiction and cannot possibly be sustained
Errors of law in the orders of the Chief Settlement Commissioner and the order Rehabilitation Authorities are apparent on their face inasmuch as the said orders have been passed in absolute ignorance of the statutory provisions referred to above
We therefore see no reason to interfere with the view taken by the High Court
Consequently we dismiss this appeal
But in the circumstances of the case the parties will bear their own costs
MR Appeal dis missed


Summary:
The property under dispute was put up for sale at two different auctions by the Managing Officer Amritsar
The Rehabilitation authorities cancelled the bid of the first auction purchaser Smt
Rup Kaur holding that she had failed to deposit the sale price in spite of issuing her a regis tered notice and at the
second auction the appellant s bid was accepted
In a petition filed under article 226 a Single Judge of the High Court found the findings of facts to be erroneous and the impugned order void and granted a writ in favour of Smt
Rup Kaur
On appeal the decision was upheld by a Division Bench of the High Court
Dismissing the appeal the Court HELD 1 The High Court does not sit as a court of appeal to substitute its own judgment for that of the au thorities which are empowered to give their decisions but apart from jurisdictional errors the High Court may correct errors apparent on the face of the record
An error to be apparent must be one which does not take prolonged arguments to bring it to the surface
The Single Judge s conclusion that provisions of Rule 90 of the Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Rules 1955 had not been complied with was not erroneous
123C D 126E F SL Hegde  Ors
MB Tirumale 1960 1 SCR 890 ap plied Hiralal Kher vs The Chief Settlement Commissioner New Delhi  referred to
2 It is a settled rule of practice of this Court not to interfere with the  exercise of discretionary powers of High Courts under article 226 of the Constitution merely be cause two views are possible upon the facts of a case
For interference by this Court the question must involve at least a matter of public or general importance or the injus tice suffered by an individual due to an error of law should be so gross as to touch the conscience of this Court in which case it would be deemed to be one of more than private importance
123E F