Beg, J. - (1.)This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissing in limine an appeal against a judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of that Court by which a Writ Petition made to the High Court had been granted.
(2.)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 Settlement 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 discover 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 S. L. Hegde v. M. B. Tirumale, (1960) 1 SCR 890 be one which does not take prolonged arguments to bring it to the surface. These propositions are quite well established.
(3.)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 interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution 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 conscience of this Court in which case it would be deemed to be one of more than private importance.