Writ jurisdiction cannot reappreciate concurrent factual findings absent perversity, jurisdictional error, or manifest illegality.

The petitioner, a resident of Village Mokhaputka, District Mahasamund, was a beneficiary under the Indira Awas Scheme and had received the first instalment of ₹35,000.

Following a complaint by the Sarpanch, recovery proceedings were initiated against her by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Saraipali. Upon non-payment, an attachment order was passed on 12 March 2019. In appeal, the Collector, Mahasamund modified the order and directed the petitioner to deposit ₹35,000 within 15 days. The petitioner’s revision before the Additional Commissioner, Raipur Division, was dismissed on 3 October 2022, affirming the Collector’s order.

She consequently invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, alleging denial of a proper opportunity of hearing and violation of natural justice.

Whether the recovery direction for ₹35,000 was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice due to denial of a proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner?

Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 226 with the concurrent findings and orders of the statutory authorities in the absence of perversity, jurisdictional error, or manifest illegality?

The Court applied the limited scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, under which interference with factual findings of competent statutory authorities is warranted only where there is perversity, manifest illegality, violation of statutory procedure, or jurisdictional error.

It also applied the principles of natural justice, particularly the requirement of a fair opportunity of hearing; however, a challenge based on denial of hearing must demonstrate actual prejudice.

The Court further recognised that where the petitioner has already availed statutory appellate and revisional remedies and those authorities have considered the matter on merits, the writ court should not re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own view for concurrent findings.

The Court noted that the recovery proceedings originated from the Sarpanch’s complaint, and that the petitioner had pursued both an appeal before the Collector and a revision before the Additional Commissioner.

The Collector had modified the original attachment order and granted 15 days’ time for payment, while the revisional authority considered and affirmed that decision.

Although the petitioner alleged inadequate hearing, she failed to establish what specific prejudice had resulted from the alleged procedural deficiency.

The Court also found no material showing that the authorities’ conclusions were perverse, unsupported by evidence, or affected by jurisdictional error.

The petitioner’s poverty and alleged failure to obtain the intended benefit of the housing scheme were held insufficient, by themselves, to justify writ interference.

Accordingly, it declined to interfere with the orders dated 8 August 2019 and 3 October 2022 and dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merit.

No order as to costs was made.