Certiorari

Issued against other judicial or quasi judicial bodies, an order or command to inferior court or tribunal to transfer its records of a case to the superior courts and if the jurisdiction is wanted in the previous proceeding or principles of natural justice have been violated, the judgment is quashed. Jamalpur Arya Samaj v Dr. D. Ram AIR 1954 Patna 297 Defn "Those cases, it is true, concerned statutory tribunals, but I see no reason why the powers of the court to intervene should be any less in the case of domestic tribunals. In each case it is a question of interpretation, in the one of a statute, in the other of the rules, to see whether the tribunal has observed the law. In the case of statutory tribunals, the injured party has a remedy by certiorari, and also a remedy by declaration and injunction. The remedy by certiorari does not lie to domestic tribunals, but the remedy by declaration and injunction does lie, and it can be as effective as, if not more effective than, certiorari. It is, indeed, more effective, because it is not subject to the limitation that the error must appear on the face of the record". AK Kraipak v UOI AIR 1970 SC150 We have as it seems to me reached the position when the ambit of certiorari can be said to cover every case in which a body of persons of a public as opposed to a purely private or domestic character has to determine matters affecting subjects provided always that it has a duty to act judicially. Certiorari is proceeding in personam Champak Lal Binani v Commissioner of IT AIR1970SC64 If the person against whom it is issued, does not obey the court, it would amount to contempt of court and can be tried. Introduction in India Royal Charter 1774 established the Supreme Court at Calcutta and gave it the power to issue writ of Certiorari. Later, the supreme courts of Bombay and madras were given the same power. It was limited to ordinary original civil jurisdiction and was confined to the three presidency towns. Devichand v Dhanraj AIR 1940 Mad 53 a writ of certiorari must issue to the inferior Court. Whether the officer or authority concerned should also be required to appear in person or by pleader is a matter which may depend on the circum-tstances of each particular case.

But Certiorari will not be granted in favour of the following.: i) ii) A person at whose instance or in whose favour, the impugned oreder has been made. A person who never applied for a permit cannot be regarded as a person who was aggrieved by an order granting it to another person.

Sisir Kumar v Majumdar AIR 1962 Alld 557 Damodar v Nasa Narayan AIR 1958 Assam 164 Imp JM Desai v Roshan Kumar AIR 1976 SC 456

The concept of "aggrieved person's being wide, any one who is personally interested and genuinely grieved by an act of usurpation of jurisdiction or lack of jurisdiction on the part of an administrative tribunal or body would fall within the category of an "aggrieved person" even if such usurpation or lack of jurisdiction had not resulted in infringement of a legal right or legal interest vested in him; nor would such a person be denied "locus standi"' for me purpose of "certiorari" merely because he had not lodged any objection or joined the proceedings before the tribunal.

In the context of locus standi to apply for a writ of certiorari, an applicant may ordinarily fall in any of these categories: (i) person aggrieved. (ii) stranger. (iii) busybody or meddlesome interloper Persons in the last category are easily distinguishable from those coming under the first two categories inasmuch as they interfere in things which do not concern them, masquerading as crusaders for justice in the name of pro bono publico, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect. A person aggrieved himself can only file for the writ of certiorari.

Grounds for writ of Certiorari

1) a) b) c) Want of Jurisdiction Excess of Jurisdiction Abuse of Jurisdiction Absence of Jurisdiction

Ebrahim Aboobakar v Custodian General of Evacuee Property AIR 1952 SC 5488 A writ of certiorari cannot be granted to quash the decision of an inferior court within its jurisdiction on the ground that the decision is wrong. It must be shown before such a writ is issued that the authority which passed the order acted without jurisdiction or in excess of it, or in violation of the principles of natural justice. Want of jurisdiction may arise from the nature of

the subject-mat- ter, so that the inferior court might not have authority to enter on the inquiry or upon some part 0f it. It may also arise from the absence of some essential preliminary or upon the existence of some particular facts collateral to the actual matter which the court has to try and which are conditions precedent to the assumption of jurisdiction by it. But once it is held that the court has jurisdiction but while exercising it, it made a mistake, the wronged party can only take the course prescribed by law for setting matters right in as much as a court has jurisdiction to decide rightly as well as wrongly.

Nalini Ranjan Gupta v Anant Shankar Roy AIR 1922 Cal 112 Cracknell v State of UP AIR 1952 ALJ 293 The reliefs claimed are: "(i) a direction, order, or writ, in the nature of a writ of certiorari be issued against the opposite parties requiring them to produce the records of the proceedings relating to the petitioner's estate and after perusal thereof the proceedings and orders of the opposite parties be quashed; (ii) an interim direction, order or writ be issued against the opposite parties requiring them to restore the management of the petitioner's estate to her in the meanwhile." Buddh Prakash Jai Prakash v Sales Tax Officer, Kanpur AIR 1952 All 76 "It is well settled that a writ of prohibition may not be used to usurp or perform the functions of an appeal, writ of error or certiorari, or to correct any mistakes, errors or irregularities in deciding any question of law or fact within its jurisdiction. 2) Violation of Principles of Natural Justice Manak Lal v Prem Chand AIR 1957 SC 425 when objection to a conviction is taken merely by a member of the public and not by a party more particularly aggrieved the granting of a certiorari' is discretionary. State of UP v Mohd. Nooh AIR 1959 SC 86 The existence of another adequate remedy may be taken into consideration in the exercise of the discretion. If an inferior Court or tribunal of first instance acts without jurisdiction or in excess of it or contrary to the rules of natural justice, the superior Court may quite properly issue a writ of certiorari to correct the error, even if an appeal to another inferior Court or tribu- nal was available, whether recourse was or was not had to it. If, therefore, the existence of other adequate legal remedies is not per se a bar to the issue of a writ of certiorari and if in a proper case it may be the duty of the superior court to issue a writ of certiorari to correct the errors of an inferior court or tribunal called upon to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial functions and not to relegate the petitioner to other legal remedies available to him and if the superior court can in a proper case exercise its jurisdiction in favour of a petitioner who has allowed the time to appeal to expire or has not perfected his appeal,

Vrajlal Manilal& Co. v UOI and ors. AIR 1964 SC 1943 Parasnath v State of Bihar AIR 1986 Patna 360 AK Gopalan v State of Madras 3) Fraud R v Gilljard (1848) 12QB 113 4) Error of Law Apparent on the face of Record Vasappa v Nagappa AIR 1954 SC 440 A writ of certiorari is generally granted when a Court has acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction. The want of jurisdiction may &rise from the nature of the subject-matter of the proceeding or from the absence of some preliminary proceeding or the Court itself may not be legally constituted or may suffer from a certain disability by reason of extraneous circumstances. If the jurisdiction of the Court depends upon the existence of some collateral fact the Court cannot by a wrong decision of the fact assume jurisdiction which it would not otherwise possess. A writ of certiorari is available in those cases where a Tribunal though competent to enter upon an enquiry acts in flagrant disregard of the rules of procedure or violates the principles of natural justice where no particular procedure is prescribed. HV Kamat v Ahmad Ishaq AIR 1955 SC 233

As respects the character and scope of the writs of certiorari the following propositions may be taken as well established: (1) Certiorari will be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction,as when an inferior Court or Tribunal acts without jurisdiction or in excess of it, or fails to exercise it. (2) Certiorari will also be issued when the Court or Tribunal acts illegally in the exercise of its undoubted jurisdiction, as when it decides without giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard, or violates the principles of natural justice. (3) The court issuing a writ of certiorari acts in exercise of a supervisory and not appellate jurisdiction. One consequence of this is that the court will not review findings of facts reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal, even if they be erroneous. (4) An error in the decision or determination itself may also be amenable to a writ of "certiorari" if it is a manifest error apparent on the face of the proceedings, e.g., when it is based on clear ignorance or disregard of the provisions of law. In other words, it is a

patent error which can be corrected by "certiorari" but not a mere wrong decision. What is an error apparent on the face of the record cannot be defined precisely or exhaustively, there being an element of indefiniteness inherent in its very nature, and it must be left to be determined judicially on the facts of each case.

Gujarat Steel Tubes v Majdoor Sabha AIR 1980 SC It was said that in order to justify a writ of certiorari it must be shown that an order suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record. It was further pointed out that in the finding of fact is made by the impugned order and it is shown that it success from an error of law and not of fact, a writ under Article 226 would issue.