Wp/19182/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hyd v. The Income Tax, Chennai And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARYTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYANANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION NO: ['19182 ]OF 2008 Between: The Commissioner of lncome Tax, (Central) Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh,Hyderabad-Hyderabad- ...PETITIONER AND 1.The lncome Tax, Settlement Commission Additional Bench, 640, Anna Salai,Nandanam, Chennai.Chennai. Nandanam, Chennai.Chennai.)M.V.R. Constructions (P) Ltd., 9-19-44, CBM Compound, Visakhapatnam,Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may bepleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order ordirection in the nature of a Writ declaring the order of the Settlement Commission(lT & WT), Additional Bench, Chennai in SA No. AP/HD51/06-07t1tATdirection in the nature of a Writ declaring the order of the Settlement Commission(lT & WT), Additional Bench, Chennai in SA No. AP/HD51/06-07t1tATdt.18-3-2008 as highly illegal, improper, arbitrary, unjust, violative of theprinciples of naturaljustice and to set aside the same.principles of naturaljustice and to set aside the same. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2008 WPMP. NO: 25014 OF 2008) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased toin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased tosuspend the order of the Settlement Commission (lT & WT), Additional Bench,Chennai in SA No. AP/HDSl/06-07l20llT dated 18-3-2008, pending disposal ofthe writ petition.the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI J.V. PRASAD (SC FOR INCOME TAX) Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : - - - - Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI M. NAGA DEEPAK The Court made the following: ORDER I , TH E HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJA - ]sHIIYANANDAND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKAI'.AMJ I WRIT PETITION No.19182 of 2:\:.tB O!pER: l) [(r ][lhe ]HotL'bIe the Chief Justice Uictl Bhulan) Hea rd Mr. J.V.Prasad, learned Star d ing Counsel,Incorne T rx Department appea-ring for the lletitioner andMr. M.Na;1a Deepak, learned counsel for respondent No.2 -ASSESSCE.2. This r,,'rit petition has been filed bv the [(lommissioner]of Incorr r: Tax (Central), Basheerbagh H-yderabad,assailing the legality and validity ol' the orc er datedI 8.03 .2O0 3 passed by the Income Ta r. SettlementCommissit n, Additional Bench, Chennai (i:rit:fly, [,the]Settlement Commission' hereafter), in SettlementApplicatior No.APlHDS1 l06-07 l17 lIT. 3. Resprrndent No.2 is an assessee under the IncomeTzx Act, 1! 61 (briefly, 'the Act' hereinafter) a:rd is engagedin the bur iness of civil construction. It i:; stated that business activities of [respondent ][No.2 ][is ][spread over ][the]then State of Andhra [Pradesh, ][Maharashtra and ][Goa.] 4. On 16.12.2004, a [search ][and ][seizure operation ][was]carried out in the [business ][and ][residential ][premises ][ol]respondent No.2 under [Section ][132 of ][the ][Act' ][That ][apart,]survey was also [conducted ][under ][Section ][133A ][of the ][Act']Pursuant to notice [under ][Section ][153.4 ][of ][the ][Act,]No.2 [filed ][its ][returns ][of ][income ][for ][the]respondent assessment [years ][2OO1-2002 ][to 2005-2006 ][as ][under:] 5. During pendency [of ][the ][assessrnent ][proceeding]following the search [and ][seizure, ][respondent ][No'2 filed ][an]application before the [Settlement ][Commission ][under]Section 245C of the Act. [Respondent ][No'2 ][disclosed ][before]the Settiement Commission additional [income over ][and]above which [was declared ][under ][Section ][153A ][of ][the ][Act ][in]the returns of [income ][as ][under:] 5. During pendency [of ][the ][assessrnent ][proceeding]following the search [and ][seizure, ][respondent ][No'2 filed ][an]application before the [Settlement ][Commission ][under]Section 245C of the Act. [Respondent ][No'2 ][disclosed ][before]the Settiement Commission additional [income over ][and]above which [was declared ][under ][Section ][153A ][of ][the ][Act ][in]the returns of [income ][as ][under:] Asst, Year&!lf !-!qqJ,,r1q [e ][otlelgd]201) I,O2Rs. 3.O2,'29320()2,03Rs. 1r9.14,'/O720()3-04I lL2004-05I\ II2005-06I\ It,TotalRs. 77 17,OOO 6. In : esponse to notice issued by t re SettlementCommissi )n, petitioner submitted objection under Rule 6of the Inrrome Tax Settlement Commission (proceedings)Rules, 19r]6 (briefly, [.the ]Rules, hereinafter). In the saidreport, p( :titioner contended that applica tion filed byrespondenI No.2 for settlement was not mainlainable andshouid be rejected. However, Settlemenl Commissionadmitted r he application of respondent No. 2. whereafterpetitioner lrad to submit a report under Rule :r of the Rulesdisclosing .herein as to how concealment of trxable incomewas detect:d by the revenue. It was mentionecl thereinthat no nerr facts were disclosed by respondetrt No.2 in theapplication In a,ll, contention of the petitiont:r was thatconditions lor settlement in terms of Section 245C of theAct were absent and therefore, the appliczttion ofrespondent No.2 shouid be rejected. How:ver, by the I \ impugned order dated 18.03.2008, [respondent ][No'1 ][ie',]Settlement Commission accepted the [additional ][income]offered by respondent No.2 at [Rs.77,17,000.00.]Consequently, petitioner [was ][directed ][to ][issue ][demand]notice to respondent [No.2 ][to ][pay ][the ][income ][tax ][as per the]order dated 18.03.2008 [passed ][under ][Section 245D(4) ][of]the Act. As a consequence [of ][the ][settiement, ][Settlement]Commission granted immunity [to ][respondent ][No'2 ][from]prosecution as well as from [imposition ][of ][penalty under ][the]Act. 7. the aforesaid [order dated ][18'O3'2008, the]Assailing present writ petition has been [filed. ][By ][order ][dated]05.09.2008, a Division [Bench ][of ][this ][Court had ][admitted]the writ petition [for hearing, ][but ][declined ][to ][grant ][any ][stay'] 8. Since stay was declined, [the ][effect ][of ][the ][order ][dated]1S.O3.2OO8 passed by the [Settlement ][Commission ][had]been given effect to. [Therefore, ][a ][view can ][be ][taken ][that]the writ petition [has ][become ][infructuous. ][Nonetheless, ][as]Mr. J.V.Prasad, learned [Standing ][Counsel ][has ][argued ][on] the meril of the order, we are of the vie,w th,rt a <lecision onmerit wor r1d be appropriate.9. Mr. J.V.Prasad, learned Standing Cou:rsel lor IncomeTa-x Dep rtment submits that Settlemer 1, C,)mmissionmechanic ally accepted the application of rr s;rorLdent No.2and brushed aside the objection raiscd by the petitionerunder Ru [e 6 ol the Rules as well as the rep,.rrt submittedunder Ru e 9 of the Rules. According to hinL, tht.re was noaclditiona. disclosure of concealed income ,tl r,:spondentNo.2 in the application liled lor settleme tt.. Whateverincome r.l as detected in the course of th t: search andseizure w ts mentioned in the applicatiotr lor s(lttlement.Therefore, Settlement Commission was no! justilied1naccepting -he plea of settlement of respondent No.2. 10. On he other hand, Mr. M.Naga De--pak, learnedcounsel fr r respondent No.2 submits that sanre set ofarguments were advanced before the SettlementCommissic n r,rrhich were rejected. Scope of interferencewith an or ler of Settlement Commission in j _rdicial reviewproceeding; is very limited. In such a proc:edirLg, Court would only look into as to whether there is any [procedural]violation by the Settlement Commission or there is anyviolation of the principles of natural [justice. ]In support ofhis contention, he has placed reliance on a decision of theSupreme Court in Jyotendrasinhji v. S.I.Tripathi'. [He,]therefore, submits that the writ petition should bedismissed. 10. On he other hand, Mr. M.Naga De--pak, learnedcounsel fr r respondent No.2 submits that sanre set ofarguments were advanced before the SettlementCommissic n r,rrhich were rejected. Scope of interferencewith an or ler of Settlement Commission in j _rdicial reviewproceeding; is very limited. In such a proc:edirLg, Court would only look into as to whether there is any [procedural]violation by the Settlement Commission or there is anyviolation of the principles of natural [justice. ]In support ofhis contention, he has placed reliance on a decision of theSupreme Court in Jyotendrasinhji v. S.I.Tripathi'. [He,]therefore, submits that the writ petition should bedismissed. 1 1. Submissions made by learned counsel for the [parties]have received the due consideration of the Court. 12. Before dealing with the order passed by [the]Settiement Commission, we may briefly advert [to ][the]scheme of settlement as provided under the [Act.] 12.1. Chapter XIX-A of the Act comprising [Sections 245A ][to]245M deals with settlement of cases. [Section 245A(f) ][of ][the]Act defines "Settlement Commission" to mean [the ][Income]Tax Settlement Commission constituted [under ][Section]2458 of the Act. I ArR 1gq3 sc 1991 12.2. As per sub-section (1) of Section 24SB of the Act, theCentral [( ]overnment shall constitute a Cor.trnission to beca-1led tlLe Income Tax Settlement Ccmmission forsettlemen: of cases under Chapter XIX-A. We may mentionthat as per the proviso, Income Tex SettlementCommissi )n so constituted had ceased to operate witheffect fron L 01 .O2.2O21 . However, we have :een informedat the Bar that an Interim Setflement Boir-rd is now inoperation to ensure that there is no va:uum in theinterregnuin. Composition of the Settlement Oommission isdeait with n sub-sections (2) and (3) of Secticn 2458 of theAct. 12.3. Juris lictional powers of Settlement Co trmi:;sion aredelineated n Section 245B.A of the Act-delineated n Section 245B.A of the Act- 12.4. Secticn 245C of the Act provides for filing ofapplication for settlement of cases. As per sub-section (l),an assesse(. may, at any stage of a case relitting to him,application for settlement of cases. As per sub-section (l),an assesse(. may, at any stage of a case relitting to him,make an application in such form and in suc-t marlner asmay be p ['escribed ]and containing a full and truedisclosure r,f his income which has not be,:n disclosed;,- r'may be p ['escribed ]and containing a full and truedisclosure r,f his income which has not be,:n disclosed;,- r' before the assessing officer, the manner in [which ][such]income has been derived, the additiona-l amount [of ][income]tax payable on such income and such other [particulars ][as]may be prescribed, to the Settlement [Commission ][to ][have]the case settled and any such application [shall ][be ][disposed]of in the manner provided in the [said ]section. [Thus, ][what]sub-section (1) of Section 245C of the Act [contemplates ][is]that there must be a full and true disclosure [by ][the]assessee not of his undisclosed [income ][but ][the]only marrner of acquiring the same if he [seeks ][settlement. ][The]full and true disclosure should not [only ][be ][confined ][to ][the]income which had not been [disclosed ][before ][the]assessment officer, but should [also ][indicate ][the ][manner ][in]which such income had been derived [and the ][additional]amount of income tax [payable ][on such ][income. ][As ][per ][the]proviso, no such application shall be [made unless ][the]additional amount of income tax [payable ][on the ][income]disclosed in the settlement application [exceeds ][rupees ][fifty]lakhs. 12.5. Tht procedure on receipt of applicatiorl under Section245C of :he Act is dealt with in Section 2.15D of the Act.Sub sect:on (1) says that on receipt of such an application,the Sett. ement Commission shall issue notice to theapplicant within seven days to explain as to why he hadmade t re application, wherea_fter tt e SettlementCommiss on is required to pass an order in rvriting withinfourteen lays either rejecting the applicati cn or allowingthe application to proceed further. In the event no order ispassed, t re proviso to sub-section (1) con-emplates thatthe appli< ation shall be deemed to have br t:n allowed bythe Settle nent Commission to be proceeded ruith. As persub-secticn (2B), the Settlement Commission shall call fora report from the Principal Commissioner or Commissionerwho shall thereafter submit a report withi r thrrty days.Further, t re Settlement Commission may also call for therecords fn m the Principal Commissioner or Oommissionerif Settleme nt Commission is of the opinion thar any furtherenquiry or investigation in the matter is neces.sary. I 12.6. Sub-section (4) of Section 245D ol the Act is relevant.It says that after examination of the record and report olthe Principal Commissioner or Commissioner and aftergiving an opportunity to the applicant as well as to thePrincipal Commissioner or Commissioner of being heardeither in person or through an authorised representativeand after examining such further evidence as may benecessary, the Settlement Commission may pass an orderon the settlement application. Sub-section (6) says thatevery order passed under sub-section (4) shall provide forthe terms of settlement including any demand by way oftax, penalt5r or interest, the manner in which any sum dueunder the settlement shall be paid and all other matters tomake the settlement effective. It clarifies that il it issubsequently found by the Settlement Commission that thesettlement was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation offacts, the settlement would be deemed to be void. Power ofrectification of arry mistake apparent from the record isavailable to the Settlement Commission in terms of sub-section (68). That apart, Settlement Commission has thepower to reopen concluded proceedings. d. 12.7 . Fi ral1y, as per Section 245H of. the \r::t, SettlementCommiss on has the porver to grant i-nmunity lromprosecuti rn and penalty in the ev( nt c 1' al.owinganapplicatic n lor settlement filed under Section 2.15C of theActAct 12.8. Seclion 245-I of the Act says that r\/er) order ofsettlemen: passed under sub-section (4) of Sec:tion 245D ofthe Act st all be conclusive as to the m€Ltters stat,:d thereinand no .natter covered by such order ;hall save asotherwise provided in Chapter XIX-A be reopened in anyproceedinl J under the Act or under anv other law for thetime being in force. 12.9. This is the overall scheme of settlemt:nt under theActAct i3. Supr:me Court in Jyotendrasinhji (supra) posed thequestion at to the scope of an appeal before the SupremeCourt undr:r Article 136 of the Constitution oI India againstan order c f the Settlement Commission. Thr: issue waswhether al I the questions of fact and law as has been [.t ][?] decided the Settlement Commission [were open ][to]by judicial review under Article 136 of the Constitution ofIndia. Supreme Court examined the scheme of settlementas provided in Chapter XIX A of the Act as under: 12.9. This is the overall scheme of settlemt:nt under theActAct i3. Supr:me Court in Jyotendrasinhji (supra) posed thequestion at to the scope of an appeal before the SupremeCourt undr:r Article 136 of the Constitution oI India againstan order c f the Settlement Commission. Thr: issue waswhether al I the questions of fact and law as has been [.t ][?] decided the Settlement Commission [were open ][to]by judicial review under Article 136 of the Constitution ofIndia. Supreme Court examined the scheme of settlementas provided in Chapter XIX A of the Act as under: 15. ... ... ... The provisions of Chapter XIX-A are,however, qualitalively different and more elaborate thalthe said provisions in the 1922 Act. The [proceedings]under this chapter commence by an application madeby the assessee as contemplated by Section 245-C.Section 245-D prescribes the [procedure ]to be followedby the commission on receipt of al application underSection 245-C. Sub-section (4) says: ["after ]examinationof the records and the report of the commissionerreceived under sub-section (1), and the report, if any, ofthe commissioner received under sub-section [(3), ]andafter giving an opportunity to the applicant alrd [to ][the]commissioner to be heard, either in [person ]or through arepresentative duly authorised in this behalf, and afterexamining such further evidence as may be [placed]before it or obtained by it, the settlement commissionmay, in accordance with the provisions of this Act, [pass]such order as it thinks fit on the matters covered [by ][the]application and any other matter relating to the case notcovered by the application, but referred to in the reportof the commissioner under sub-section (1) or sub-section (3)." Section 245-E empowers the Commission tore-open tlle completed proceedings in appropriate cases,while Seclion 245-F confers ali the powers of al IncomeTax authority upon the Commission. Section 245-Hempowers the Commission to grant immunity from pen, dty and prosecution, wlth or without co:rclitio:1s, incas€ s where it is satisfied that the assessee lras made afull disclosure of his income arrd its sour:es. ijnderSect on 245-HA, the Commission can sen< back thecas€ s where it is satisfied that the assessee lras made afull disclosure of his income arrd its sour:es. ijnderSect on 245-HA, the Commission can sen< back thematr er to assessing oIlicer, where it find,; that t.l-eappl cant is not cooperating with it. Sr ction 245appl cant is not cooperating with it. Sr ction 245decli res that every order of setflemellt pas sed r.rnderSub-section (4) of Section 245(D) shall be co;rclusive asto tt e matters stated therein and no matter :overed bySub-section (4) of Section 245(D) shall be co;rclusive asto tt e matters stated therein and no matter :overed bysuch. order shall, save as otherwise provided n ChapterXIX- \, be re-opened in any proceeding under *re Act orundr r any other law for the time being in for,r:. Section245- . declares that any proceedings under chal:rter XIX-A be bre the settlement commission shall be leemr:d tobe a [judicial ]proceeding within the meaning < I Sections193 rmd 228 and, for the purposes of Section l!16 of theIndia-r Penal Code.undr r any other law for the time being in for,r:. Section245- . declares that any proceedings under chal:rter XIX-A be bre the settlement commission shall be leemr:d tobe a [judicial ]proceeding within the meaning < I Sections193 rmd 228 and, for the purposes of Section l!16 of theIndia-r Penal Code. 14. Ther eafter, Supreme Court held that despite thefinnlity cli use contained in Section 245 1 of the. Act, thesalrre \ [/ou ]d not bar and cannot bar jurisdictiorl 01'the HighCourt under Article 226 of the Constitution of Inrlia or thejurisdictio: r ol' the Supreme Court under l\r'ticle 32 orArticle 13( of the Constitution of India. How,:ver, havingregarcl to the nature of settlement conter underl),atr:d Chapter X tX-A, Supreme Court held rh:rt t he scope ofenquirry ur rcler Articl e 226 of the Con stitu tion of India I ..>/l I 14. Ther eafter, Supreme Court held that despite thefinnlity cli use contained in Section 245 1 of the. Act, thesalrre \ [/ou ]d not bar and cannot bar jurisdictiorl 01'the HighCourt under Article 226 of the Constitution of Inrlia or thejurisdictio: r ol' the Supreme Court under l\r'ticle 32 orArticle 13( of the Constitution of India. How,:ver, havingregarcl to the nature of settlement conter underl),atr:d Chapter X tX-A, Supreme Court held rh:rt t he scope ofenquirry ur rcler Articl e 226 of the Con stitu tion of India I ..>/l I would be very limited - confined to [procedural ]irregularityor violation of the principles of natural [justice ][(audi ]alterampartem), challenge on the ground of bias, fraud and malice.Supreme Court referred to its earlier decision in Sri RantDurga Prasad v. Settlement Commissionz, wherein [it]was held that [judicial ]review is concerned with the [legality]of procedure followed and not with the validity of the order;judicial review is concerned not with the decision, but withthe decision making process. It was held as follows: 16. It is true that the fina.lity clause contained inSection 245-I does not and cannot bar the [jurisdiction ][of]the High Court under Article 226 or the [jurisdiction ][of]this court under Article 32 or under Article [136, ]as [the]case may be. But that does not mean that thejurisdiction of this Court in the appeal preferred directlyin this court is any different than what it would be if theassessee had lirst approached the High Court underArl:cle 226 and then come up in appeal to this courtunder Article 136. A [party ]does not and cannot [gain ][any]advantage by approaching this Court directly underArticle 136, instead of approaching the High Courtunder Article 226. TL,is is not a limitation inherent inArticle 136; it is a limitation which this court imposeson itself having regard to the nature of the functionperformed by the Commission and keeping in view theprinciples of judicial review. May be, there is also some forc: in what Dr. Gauri Shankar says viz., thtt the orderof c cmmission is in the nature of a packal3: dezrl andthat it may not be possible, ordinarily spe.akfurg, todiss:ct its order and that the assessce shcrrld rrot beperr dtted to accept what is favourable to hin r:nd rejectwhal is not. According to leaJned co.rtlsel. theCon mission is not even required or obligate,l [o pass areas:ned order. Be that as it may, the l'act rernains thatit is open to the Commission to accept arl amJunt ff ta,xby vay of settlement and to prescribc the manner inwhic h the said amount shall be paid. It m. )' corrdonethe r lefaults and lapses on the part of lhe as;esset: ardmay waive interest, penalties or prosecutior , wht:re itthinl:s appropriate. Indeed, it would be rhfficult topred cate the reasons and considerations wh t:tr inducethe { ommission to make a particular order, unless ofcourrie the commission itself chooses to give reasons forits o. der. Even if it gives reasons in a given (:ase, thescopr of inquiry in the appeal remains thr same asindic rted above viz., whether it is contr:rry to ar:y o[ theprovi;ions of the Act. In this context, rt is r:lt:valt tonote [jlat ]the principle of natura.l justice (aurii altc:rantporteilt) has been incorporated in Set:tion245-I t itself. The sole overall limitation rpon theComr rission thus appears to be that it shor l<i ac.t inaccor lance with the provisions of the Act. Thr' scoF,e ofenqui y, whether by High Court under Article 226 or bythis C ourt under Article 136 is also tfre same rvhetherthe or der of the Commission is contrar-v to a n,v of theprovis Lons of the Act ald if so, has it preju lir:ed thepetitic ner/appellant apart from ground of bias. iraud &malict which, of course, constitute a sepa rate arld independent category. Reference in this behalf may [be]had to the decision of this Court in sri [Rant ][Durga ][Prasad]v. settlement commission (MANU/SC/0429 / 1989 '.[19891176ITR169(SC)), [which ][too ][was an ][appeal against]the orders of the Settiement Commission. [Sabyasachi]Mukharji, J., speaking for the Bench comprising [himself]and S.R. Pandian, J. observed that in such a case thisCourt is "concerned with the legality of [procedurc]followed and not with the validity of [the ][order." ][The]learned Judge added ['judicial ]review is concerned [not]with the decision but with the decision-making [process."]Reliance was placed upon the decision [of ][the ][House ][of]Lords in Chief Constabie of the [rr.w. ][Police ][v. evans ][(11982]]1 W.L.R.1155). Thus, the appellate [power ]under [Article]136 was equated to power of [judicial ]review, [where the]appeal is directed against the orders' of [the ][Settlement]Commission. For all the above reasons, [we ]are [of ][the]opinion that the only [ground ]upon [which this ][Court ][can]interfere in these appeals is that order of [the]Commission is contrar5r to the [provisions ]of [the Act ][ald]that such contravention has [prejudiced ]the [appellant.]The main controversy in these appeals [relates ][to ][the]interpretation of the settlement deeds [- ][though ][it ][is ][true,]some contentions of law are a-lso raised. [The commission]has interpreted t}le trust deeds in a [particula,r ]manner,Even if the interpretation placed by the comrnission [the]said deeds is not correct, it would not be a [ground for]interference in these appeals, since a [wrong]interpretation of a deed of trust cannot be [said ][to ][be ][a]violation of the provisions of the lncome [Ta-x ][Act, ][It ][is]equally clear that the interpretation [placed ][upon ][the]said deeds by the Commission [does ][not ][bind ][the] \ aut rorities under the Act in proceedings :r:lating tooth' :r aSsessment years.oth' :r aSsessment years. 15. Ker ping the above in mind, let us n( f"^. e)ramine theimpugne I order dated 18.03.2008 piLssed by theSettleme:rt Commission under Section 245 ol the Act.-t(41 After refe rence to the factual matrix and al ter h earing therevenuers well as the assessee, Settleme t1. Crtmmissionlound tl at there was no basis for e st.imittion andquantilicr -tion of undisclosed income by tlLe dr:partment.Settlemer t Commission found tirat i.L sum ofRs.2.00,0),000.00 comprising of Rs.50,00, l,(,)O.()0 oiferedin the ret-rrn filed under Section 153A.. Rs. , t3,70,000.00in the set tlentent application as well as a lur.th,lr sum ofRs.36,30,t)00.00 olfered in the course of [.rcaring ]wouldmeet the [,rnds ]of justice. The sarne was ac< t:1tte,1 and theissue was settled. 16. We c o not find any procedural or substantive error orinfirmity i r the approach of the Settlement (:lonlmission.Settlement Commission had followecl th: laicl dorvnprocedure contemplated under Chapter XIX-1. of the Act as II I l8 wellasundertheRules.Principlesofnaturaljusticewereduly [complied ][with' ][There ][is no ][allegation ][of ][any ][fraud ][or]misrepresentation' [tn ][the ][absence ][thereof' ][we are ][aJraid]we cannot [reopen ][a ][concluded settlement ][in ][a ][proceeding]under [Articl ][e ][226 ][of ][the ][Constitution ][of ][India ][like ][an]appellate [authority'] 17 . In [the ][circumstances'][ we are ][of the ][view ][that ][there ][ts]no merit [in ][the ][writ ][Petition'] 18.Writ petition [is ][accordingly dismissed'] Miscellaneous [applications ][pending' ][if ][any' ][shall] stand [closed. However, ][there shall ][be ][no order ][as ][to ][costs'] SD/-G.SIREESHA!ASSISTA}T ,ITRUE [COPY'/].tt"+i& [oFFrcER]Advocate roPUClTo,12. Bffi [i,r*i5"#r(Ffdo* ]['*Byo.rr,fr, ]aTwo CD [CoPies]BN&-^- BS CL5 HIGH COUIIT DATED:031 )112023 ."$'aa'?\-.,\ ORDERwP.No.191ti2 0f 2008 DISMISSINC THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS CEpa<- NA--1;>t