Appeal No 407 of 1956
Appeal from the judgment and order dated February 14 1956 of the former Judicial Commissioner s Court Bhopal in Misc
Civil Case No 24 of 1955
Sanat P Mehta and section N Andley for the appellant
K N Rajagopal Sastri and D Gupta for the respondent
September 2
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by section K DAS J
This is an appeal on a certificate under article 133 of the Constitution
The short question for decision is whether the learned Judicial Commissioner of Bhopal rightly dismissed a petition under article 226 of the Constitution made by the Bhopal Sugar Industries Limited hereinafter referred to as the appellant company praying for the issue of an appropriate order or direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus to compel the Income tax Officer Bhopal respondent herein to carry out certain directions given by the Income tax Appellate Tribunal Bombay to the said officer in an appeal preferred by the appellant company from an order of assessment made against it by the respondent
The relevant facts are these
The appellant company carries on the business of manufacturing and selling sugar in various grades and quantities
It has its factory at Sehore which was formerly in the Bhopal State and is now situate in the State of Madhya Pradesh
It purchased sugar cane from local cultivators and also grew its own sugar cane in farms situate in that State such sugar cane being used for its manufacture of sugar
During the year of account ending on September 30 1950 the appellant company purchased 772217 maunds of sugar cane from local 61 476 cultivators at various purchasing centers 14 in number situate at a distance of about 8 to 22 miles from its factory
The price paid was Rs 1 4 6 per maund that being the price fixed by the then State of Bhopal
The average cost of transporting the sugar cane from the various centers to the factory was stated to be Rs 0 4 9 per maund
During the same period the appellant company grew its own sugar cane to the extent of 678490 maunds and brought the same along with the cultivators  sugar cane to its factory for manufacturing sugar
For the sugar cane grown on its own farms the appellant company claimed Rs 1 13 0 per maund as its market value including Rs 0 4 9 as average transport charges the total market value for 678490 maunds thus coming to Rs 1229763
The appellant company deducted from the aforesaid market value a sum of Rs 977772 as agricultural expenses namely expenses of harvesting loading etc and claimed the balance of Rs 251991 as agricultural income to be deducted from the computation of its total income for the assessment year 1951 52
The respondent accepted the figure of Rs 977772 as agricultural expenses but computed the market value of 678490 maunds of sugar cane grown on the appellant company s own farms at Rs 933000 at the rate of Rs 1 6 0 per maund thus according to this computation there was a loss of Rs 44772 and the respondent held in his assessment order that the appellant company was not entitled to claim any deduction of agricultural income for the assessment year
The appellant company then appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner Jubbalpore who determined the market value of the sugar cane grown on the appellant company s own farms at Rs 1007132 at the rate of Rs 1 7 9 per maund
This resulted in an agricultural income of Rs 29360 which the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed to be deducted from the total income of the appellant com pany
Not satisfied with the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner the appellant company preferred 477 an appeal to the Income tax Appellate Tribunal Bombay and claimed that the market value of the sugar cane grown on its farms should be Rs 1 13 0 per maund and not Rs 1 7 9
There was no dispute before the Tribunal as to the agricultural expenses and the question which the Tribunal had to decide related to the market value of 678490 maunds of sugar cane grown on the appellant company s own farms
After referring to r 23 of the Income tax Rules and certain other matters the Tribunal said  We are therefore inclined to think that market  within the meaning of rule 23 is not the centers but the factory where the assessee company manufactures sugar
This being the position in order to find out the market value we have to add the transport charges from the centers to the factory
We were told that the transport charges amounted to Rs 0 4 9 per maund
We have not been able to verify this figure
In our opinion therefore the sugar cane produced by the assessee company in its own farms has to be valued at Rs 1 4 6 per maund plus the average transport charges per maund from the centers to the factory
The Tribunal then gave the following directions to the respondent   We would therefore direct the Income tax Officer to ascertain the average transport charges per maund from the centers to the factory and to add to it the rate of Rs 1 4 6 per mand and on that basis work out the market value of the sugar cane grown by the assessee company in its own farms
If the market value comes to more than Rs 1 7 9 per maund further relief to the necessary extent will be given by the Income tax Officer
If however the market value is less than Rs 1 7 9 the appeal must fail 
The Commissioner of Income tax then applied to the Tribunal for a reference under section 661 of the Income tax Act stating that a question of law arose out of the Tribunal s order in as much as the Tribunal was not justified in the opinion of the Department to add average transport charges to the price of 478 Rs 1 4 6 per maund of sugar cane grown by the appellant company
This application woos however withdrawn on August 4 1954
The order of the Tribunal thus became final and was binding on the parties
In the meantime the appellant company moved the respondent to give effect to the directions of the Tribunal
After some abortive correspondence between the respondent and his higher officers on one side and the appellant company on the other the respondent informed the appellant company on March 24 1955 that no relief could be given to it
In his letter of that date the respondent said In this connection your attention is invited to the order of the Tribunal to ascertain the cost of transportation of the sugar cane from the farms to the factory which could only be considered in working out the market value of the agricultural produce
As is evident from your account books you are found to have debited a sum of Rs 59116 only out of the total transportation expenses to your agricultural produce account
Naturally therefore only the expenses so incurred by you can be considered in working out the market value of the agricultural sugar cane
By adding the transportation charges to the valuation of sugar cane at Rs 146 on 678490 maunds of agricultural produce the total cost of the agricultural produce would be Rs 928431
Against this by the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner the value of the farm cane was taken at Rs 1007132 and thus the excess allowance of Rs 78701 has already been allowed to you
Thus as the market value of the agricultural produce does not in any case exceed Rs 1 7 9 as held by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner the result of the Tribunal s order as per their finding given in para 8 of the order results in no relief being given to you
 It is worthy of note here that while the Tribunal had directed the respondent to ascertain the average transport charges from the centers to the factory the respondent referred to the cost of transportation from the farms to the factory
Clearly enough the respondent misread the direction of the Tribunal and failed 479 to carry it out
He proceeded on a basis which was in contravention of the direction of the Tribunal
In these circumstances the appellant company moved the Judicial Commissioner Bhopal then exercising the powers of a High Court for that area for the issue of a writ to compel the respondent to carry out the directions given by the Tribunal
The learned Judicial Commissioner found in express terms that the respondent had acted arbitrarily and in clear violation of the directions given by the Tribunal  in other words he found that the respondent had disregarded the order of the Tribunal failed to carry out his duty according to law and had acted illegally
Having found this the learned Judicial Commissioner went on to examine the correctness or otherwise of the order of the Tribunal and found that the Tribunal went wrong in not treating the centers as markets  within the meaning of r 23 of the Income tax Rules
He then came to the conclusion that in view of the error committed by the Tribunal there was no manifest injustice as a result of the order of the respond ent  accordingly he dismissed the application for the issue of a writ made by the appellant company
We think that the learned Judicial Commissioner was clearly in error in holding that no manifest injustice resulted from the order of the respondent conveyed in his letter dated March 24 1955
By that order the respondent virtually refused to carry out the directions which a superior tribunal had given to him in exercise of its appellate powers in respect of an order of assessment made by him
Such refusal is in effect a denial of justice and is furthermore destructive of one of the basic principles in the administration of justice based as it is in this country on a hierarchy of courts
If a subordinate tribunal refuses to carry out directions given to it by a superior tribunal in the exercise of its appellate powers the result will be chaos in the administration of justice and we have indeed found it very difficult to appreciate the process of reasoning by which the learned Judicial Commissioner while roundly condemning the respondent for refusing to carry out the directions of the superior 480 tribunal yet held that no manifest injustice resulted from such refusal
It must be remembered that the order of the Tribunal dated April 22 1954 was not under challenge before the Judicial Commissioner
That order had become final and binding on the parties and the respondent could not question it in any way
As a matter of fact the Commissioner of Income tax had made an application for a reference which application was subsequently withdrawn
The Judicial Commissioner was not sitting in appeal over the Tribunal and we do not think that in the circumstances of this case it was open to him to say that the order of the Tribunal was wrong and therefore there was no injustice in disregarding that order
As we have said earlier such view is destructive of one of the basic principles of the administration of justice
In fairness to him it must be stated that learned counsel for the respondent did not attempt to support the judgment of the Judicial Commissioner on the ground that no manifest injustice resulted from the refusal of the respondent to carry out the directions of a superior tribunal
He conceded that even if the order of the Tribunal was wrong a subordinate and inferior tribunal could not disregard it he readily recognised the sanctity and importance of the basic principle that a subordinate tribunal must carry out the directions of a superior tribunal
He argued however that the order of the Tribunal was unintelligible and the respondent did his best to understand it according to his light
This argument advanced on behalf of the respondent appears to us to be somewhat disingenuous
We find no difficulty in understanding the order of the Tribunal it directed the respondent  to ascertain the average transport charges per maund from the centers to the factory and add to it the rate of Rs 1 4 6 per maund of sugar cane
The direction is clear and unambiguous
The respondent instead of ascertaining the average transport charges per maund from the centers to the factory referred to the transport charges from the farms to the factory and on that footing disregarded the directions of the Tribunal  for  481 the respondent to say thereafter that the order of the Tribunal was not intelligible betrays a regrettable lack of candour
We must therefore reject the argument of learned counsel for the respondent
The learned Judicial Commissioner referred to three decisions in support of the proposition that a direction or order in the nature of a writ of mandamus cannot be claimed as of right nor need such a writ issue for every omission or irregularity Bimal Chand vs Chairman Jiagunj Azimgunj Municipality 1 Gram Panchayat Vidul of Vidul vs Multi Purpose Co operative Society of Vidul 2 and Messrs Senairam Doongarmall vs Commr
of Income Tax Assam 3
In the view which we have expressed namely that by the im pugned order the respondent failed to carry out a legal duty imposed on him and such failure was destructive of a basic principle of justice a writ of mandamus should issue ex debito justiciae to compel the respondent to carry out the directions given to him by the Income tax Appellate Tribunal Bombay and it is unnecessary to consider the decisions referred to above except merely to state that in none of them arose any question of condoning a refusal by an inferior tribunal to carry out the directions given to that tribunal by a superior tribunal in the undoubted exercise of its appellate powers on the ground that the order of the superior tribunal was wrong
We must therefore allow this appeal set aside the judgment and order of the Judicial Commissioner dated February 14 1956 and issue an order directing the respondent to carry out the directions given by the Income tax Appellate Tribunal Bombay in its judgment and order dated April 22 1954
The appellant company will be entitled to its costs in the proceedings before the Judicial Commissioner and in this Court
Appeal allowed
1 AIR 1954 Cal 285
2 AIR 1954 Nag
3 AIR 1955 Assam 201


Summary:
The respondent was appointed a Sub Inspector on probation in the Orissa Police Force
A notice was served on him to show cause why he should not be discharged from service  for gross neglect of duties and unsatisfactory work 
He submitted his explanation and asked for opportunity to cross examine certain witnesses
The Deputy Inspector General of Police considered the explanation unsatisfactory and passed an order discharging the respondent from service  for unsatisfactory work and conduct 
The respondent contended that the order was invalid on two grounds i that he was not given a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the proposed action within the meaning of article 3112 and ii that he was not afforded an opportunity to be heard nor was any evidence taken on the charges
Held that the order of discharge did not amount to dismis sal and did not attract the protection of article 3112 of the Constitution and was a valid order
The services of the respondent  who was a probationer were terminated in accordance with the rules and not by way of punishment
He had no right to the post held by him and under the terms of his appointment he was liable to be discharged at any time during the period of his probation
The notice given to the respondent was under Rule 55 B of the Civil Services Classification Control and Appeal Rules which made it obligatory to give such notice before terminating the services of a probationer
The enquiry was merely for ascertaining whether he was fit to be confirmed
Shyam Lal vs The State of U P  and Purshottam Lal Dhingra vs Union of India   referred to
State of Bihar vs Gopi Kishore Prasad AIR 1960 SC 689 distinguished