Article 226 jurisdiction does not permit interference with concurrent factual findings absent perversity.

The petitioner challenged the Additional Commissioner’s order dated 6 November 2018, which affirmed the Collector’s order dated 8 December 2015 and the Sub-Divisional Officer’s order dated 30 June 2014.

The dispute concerned the deletion and subsequent restoration of Dhaniram’s name in the Below Poverty Line (BPL) list.

The Tehsildar had deleted Dhaniram’s name on 8 August 2013, following a complaint and local enquiry.

On appeal, the SDO restored the name after issuing notice to the petitioner, proceeding ex parte when she did not appear, and conducting a spot inspection.

The SDO found that Dhaniram lived separately from his father with his wife and had no independent source of income.

Restoration of Dhaniram’s BPL status enabled his wife, respondent Laxmi Lodhi, to receive ten additional marks in the selection for Anganwadi Worker.

1. Whether the SDO’s order dated 30 June 2014 restoring Dhaniram’s name to the BPL list was passed in violation of natural justice or without jurisdiction.

2. Whether the High Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, should interfere with the concurrent factual findings of the SDO, Collector and Additional Commissioner regarding Dhaniram’s BPL eligibility.

3. Whether the petitioner established that the concurrent findings were perverse or contrary to the record so as to warrant writ interference.

The Court applied Article 226 of the Constitution, under which judicial review is supervisory and does not ordinarily extend to reappreciation of evidence or interference with concurrent findings of fact.

Interference is warranted where the decision-maker acted without jurisdiction, violated the principles of natural justice, or recorded findings that are perverse or contrary to the record.

The principles of natural justice require reasonable notice and an opportunity of hearing; however, a party who was duly served and failed to appear may be proceeded against ex parte.

The Court also accepted that factual findings based on an official spot inspection may be sustained unless shown to be unsupported or perverse.

The Court found that the SDO had issued notice to the petitioner and proceeded ex parte only after her failure to appear despite service, thereby negating the allegation of denial of natural justice.

The SDO independently examined the record, identified deficiencies in the basis of the Tehsildar’s deletion order, conducted a spot inspection, and found that Dhaniram lived separately from his father and had no source of income.

The petitioner did not identify any material demonstrating that these findings were perverse, unsupported by evidence, or reached without jurisdiction.

Since the SDO’s findings were affirmed by the Collector and the Additional Commissioner, and no exceptional ground for interference under Article 226 was established, the High Court declined to reappraise the factual determination.

The petitioner failed to show that the concurrent findings concerning Dhaniram’s separate residence and lack of income were perverse or contrary to the record.

Consequently, no ground for interference under Article 226 was made out, and W.P. No. 1309 of 2019 was dismissed.

The impugned orders affirming restoration of Dhaniram’s name in the BPL list were left undisturbed.