https://blog.ipleaders.in/writ/?

amp=1
Image Source: sabrangindia.in

This article is written by Pratibha Bansal, a student of Banasthali Vidhyapith, Rajasthan, she has tried to explain the whole concept of writ under Indian Constitution in her
article, along with some landmark judgment and decided case laws and procedure of filing writs in High Courts and Supreme Court.

Table of Contents

Introduction

What is a writ
Types of Writ
Habeas corpus
Mandamus
Prohibition
Certiorari
Quo Warranto
High Court (Article 226)
Supreme Court (Article 32)
Writ Jurisdiction of High Court
Public Law Remedy of Immense Scope
Territorial Extent of Writ Jurisdiction
Discretionary Remedy
Supervisory Power
Principles for Exercise of Jurisdiction
Alternative remedy
Delay
Suppression of facts
Futile writ
Disputed question of facts
Perpetuation of illegality
Dismissal of limine
Joinder of parties
Res judicata
Interim relief
Relief cannot be barred by the statute
Writs against the legislature
Who may apply
To whom writs may be issued
Difference between Certiorari and Prohibition
Difference between Mandamus and Certiorari
Writ Petition
Who can file a writ petition
Curative Petition
Difference between review petition and curative petition
How to file a writ petition in High Court
How to file a writ petition in Supreme Court
Difference between Writ Jurisdiction of the High Court and Supreme Court
Exhaustion of alternative remedies before moving to High Court
When writ of habeas corpus may be refused
Role of writs under Administrative Actions
Conclusion
References

Introduction
I would like to begin my article by quoting some lines of King Martin Luther as “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere”.

Which means that, if anywhere in this world, any wrongful act is committed or injustice has been done to anybody then it will spread like a virus and can’t be tolerated
anywhere. Therefore, all the justice done will be spoiled and everyone else has to wonder, what it would take for that same injustice to be done with them. Moreover, there
arises a need to provide justice to all and remove the bias from the system. Hence the concept of writ were introduced in Common Law for keeping a judicial eye on the
work of administration.

In ancient times, this unique development of writ were done by Anglo-Saxon monarchy that consist of brief administrative order, basically for land revenue purposes.
During that time writs were the documents issued by the King’s Chancellor against the landowner whose villeins(feudal tenant) complained to the king about an injustice
done with them. This document was only issued after the summons from the sheriff to comply deemed fruitful.
Click Here

Later William took the concept of writs by making just two differences

1. Writ were issued in latin instead of Anglo-Saxon, and

2. Writs will be covering more command other than only land related commands

By 5 March 1133 writs became available to private individuals for seeking justice.there were two main forms of writs-

1. Open- available for all to read.

2. Letters close- available for one or more specific individuals only.

What is a writ
A writ is a written official order issued by the court. The formal order may be in form of warrant, direction, command, order etc. Writs can only be issued by the High Court
Under Article 226 of Indian Constitution,1950 and by The Supreme Court under Article 32 of Indian Constitution,1950. Indian constitution has adopted the concept of
prerogative writs from English common law. Writs was first used to describe a written command of the King. Whereas, these writs are now available to a person aggrieved
by the decision of the inferior courts or administrative body in England.

Differentiating between writs and order it can be said that writs can be issued to provide extraordinary remedy i.e in cases where the aggrieved person is seeking for an
extraordinary remedy usually against an administrative action, whereas, order can in passes in any matter. There are 5 different types of writ provided under law, whereas,
no such classification for orders has been made.

Hence, all the writs can be called as order but all order can’t be called writs, because the ambit of order is larger than writs.

Types of Writ
There are 5 types of writes specified under Indian constitution law.
Habeas corpus

Writ of habeas corpus can be issued for preserving the liberty of a person, who is being illegally detained. It can be invoked against the state as well as against the person
within whose custody the aggrieved person is. It came into the picture for preserving the rights and liabilities of

Writ of habeas corpus is a powerful weapon available before a common man who has been wrongfully detained by the person or state. This writ provides a fast and
powerful remedy against illegal detention.

Case- State of Bihar v Kameshwar prasad verma

This writ is an order calling the person who was arrested or jailed the alleged person for producing the aggrieved before the court, for knowing the grounds of his detention
and if not found any legal ground for his detention then let the aggrieved be free from arrest and let him enjoy his freedom.

OBJECT

Case- Sapmawia v Dy. commissioner

The main focus of habeas corpus writ is preserving the right of the appellant’s freedom by a quick judicial review for pleaded wrongful detention.

This writ came before the existence of a statute, therefore, deep-rooted into the history of our common law.

Case-ADM, Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla

This case is known as habeas corpus case, here it is explained, what is a writ of habeas corpus mean? Quoting Justice Khanna “writ of habeas corpus is a process of securing
the liberty of an aggrieved person by providing an adequate method for immediate relief from wrongful or illegal detention. Whether the person kept in wrongful custody is
in prison or under private custody of an individual.” and after the enquiry regarding the cause of his imprisonment by the High Court and the judges of that court, if it is
found that there is no legal jurisdiction for that incarceration, the aggrieved person is ordered to be released from custody.

Features

There will be a total of 15 features of this writ of habeas corpus that will be making its whole concept more clear.

1.
1. Writ of habeas corpus is a process by which any person who has been wrongfully arrested or detained may be set free from such illegal internment.

Purpose

It is in the form of an order delivered by the High Court or Supreme Court for calling upon the person who made the arrest of the aggrieved person. Commanding to produce
such person before the court, for hearing the grounds on which his arrest was made.and if there is no legal ground observed by the court in making his arrest the person
making such arrest is ordered to release the aggrieved immediately.

Case- Kanu Sanyal v District Magistrate Darjeeling

Justice Bhagwati held that the main aim of this writ is preserving the liberty and freedom of the person subjected to illegal detention and allow him to enjoy his liberty at the
fullest. In extension to this aim, his(person alleged to be illegally apprehended) production before the court is ancillary.

Whereas, under English law production of an alleged person body, for determining the legality of his detention, is not required. And under before US Courts also the same
principle is followed.

Who may file an application

Application for habeas corpus can be filed by the person himself whose detention was alleged wrongful and can also be filed any other person ( can be a mother, father,
wife, brother, sister or even friends) on his behalf, subject to the rules constructed by different High Court in this respect.

Case- Charanjit Lal Chowdhury v Union of India

Supreme Court declares that an application for the writ of habeas corpus can be filed by the person illegally jailed or can also be filed by any other person on his behalf
provided that such any person must not be totally a stranger to the person wrongfully detained.

Duty of Applicant

Application for writ of habeas corpus must be filed along with

1. An affidavit
2. Declaring the grounds of his detention,
3. Circumstances in which his arrest has been made, and
4. Nature of his detention.

Therefore, it became the duty of the person making an application to disclose all the facts of the case in that application/petition to the best of his knowledge.

Under English law, it is stated that it becomes the duty of the state to place before the Court all the relevant and material facts relating to such an impugned action truly and
fairly, whenever any arrest or detention is challenged before the court.

Procedure

On receipt of the application, if the court is satisfied that there arises a prima facie case for granting the prayer then, the court will issue a show cause notice(rule nisi) calling
the opposite party who detained the applicant on the specified day for presenting their side of the case.

On the specified day court after analysing all the point made by both the applicant as well as by the opposite party will look into the merits and pass an appropriate order. If
it is viewed by the court that the detention is unjustified, it will order the authority who detained the applicant for immediate release of the convicted person. Whereas, if the
detention is justified according to the court, the show cause notice must be discharged.

Case- S.M.D. Kiran Pasha v Government of Andra Pradesh

In the above-stated case, it was held by the Supreme Court of India that the court before which the case is pending for disposal has the power to grant interim bail. But in the
usual course of working grant of interim bail by the court is not preferred.

Case- State of Maharashtra v Bahurao Punjabrao Gawande

This a recent judgment of 2008 by the Supreme Court of India disclosing that as per general principle writ of habeas corpus can be issued only once the person has been
arrested whereas, there are exceptional circumstances in which a petition for writ of habeas corpus is maintainable even if the person is not actually detained. Such an
exercise is undertaken by writ- court with extreme care and caution.

1. If certain conditions are satisfied then it will become absolutely clear that detention can’t be prima facie illegal:-
2. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution declares that “every detention must be according to the procedure provided under the law”. Meaning that there a given valid
law allowing the authorities to convict the person accused of some offence and the procedure prescribed must be strictly followed by the person making such arrest.
The following procedure must be fair, reasonable and just.
3. The conviction must not be followed by infringement of any of the conditions provided under Article 22 of The Indian Constitution. Hence any person not produced
before a Magistrate within 24 hours from his arrest (excluding travelling time) shall be entitled to be released on a writ of habeas corpus.

Case- D.K.Basu v State of West Bengal

This is a landmark judgment in which Justice T.S.Thakur has laid down 11 which are supposed to be followed by the person making an arrest of an accused person. These
guidelines include production of the person before any magistrate within 24 hours from the time of his arrest and held that in case if these guidelines are not being followed
by the court then person detained must be entitled to be released on the same grounds on a writ of habeas corpus.

1. The legislature which is making law in regards to a man, depriving him from his personal liberty must also be empowered to make laws under Article 246 making
knots with the distribution of legislative power.
2. Writ of habeas corpus can only be issued if there is illegal restrain and the person is entitled to be released on a petition of habeas corpus. Question asked by the
court on a petition of habeas corpus is whether the detention is lawful or not and if it is answered positively then such a writ will not be issued and if answered
negatively then the writ must be issued.

Case- R. v Secretary for State of Home Affairs

In the given case application for a writ of habeas corpus was filed for the discharge of Robert Soblen, as here before the court, the question was, whether the detention of Mr
Robert is lawful or not? As he is not in a condition to be held in prison, medically. His surgeon at the hospital also didn’t allow any legal documents to be served to him until
july 3.

Therefore, considering the facts of the case writ of habeas corpus was granted.

1. In case it is visible that detaining authority has acted mala fidely or with the intention to deceive the arrested person or there are any personal grudges involved then
a writ of habeas corpus will lie.

Case- A.K. Gopalan v State of Madras

The petition was filed under article 32 before the Supreme Court of India.writ of habeas corpus was filed against his detention in Madras jail mentioning all the dates since
December 1947, under ordinary criminal law. His detention was made under preventive detention act IV of 1950.

Petitioner challenges the legality of the given act ass it contravenes the provisions of article 13,19 and 21 and provision of preventive detention act are not in consonance of
article 22 of Indian Constitution also. And challenged the validity of the order stating that the order passed against him is mala fide.

Held- Court will not interfere on the question of malafide unless it is proved by the petitioner that the authorities have used their power in a mala fide manner or the
grounds of his detention are not justified. It is also declared by the court that though the provisions of the act are harsh or rigid, but those do not take away the rights
provided under chapter III, Article 21 and 22 of Indian, therefore provision of preventive detention act can’t be held illegal or ultra vires and impugned order was upheld by
the court.

1. According to the general principle of law, writ of habeas corpus will not lie if the person is undergoing imprisonment on a sentence passed by a court in any criminal
trial on the ground of wrongfulness of his detention. That implies writ can’t be issued when the person is not convicted or is clearly visible that his detention is done
for the execution of a sentence on any criminal charge. While the conviction is taking place an application of issuance of the writ can’t be filed along with it.

Case- Janardhan Reddy v State of Hyderabad

In the given case it was held by the supreme court that whenever a person is convicted of a criminal charge and sentence of his conviction is passes by the criminal trial
court then such detention can’t be challenged on the ground of the erroneousness of the conviction.

Successive Application

There is no right to file a successive application for grant of habeas corpus writ to different judges of the same court.

Whereas, till many years in England an unsuccessful applicant is allowed to approach one or more Judges of the same court or any other court successively. An applicant
can also get his application renewed on the earlier pieces of evidence and on the same grounds for issuance of this writ.

Case- Eshugbayi Eleko v Government of Nigeria

It was held by Lord Atkin, justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria, that issuance of a writ of habeas corpus must be followed by proper procedure. The subject has the right to
question the validity of his detention again and again by moving an application before different judges for the same facts and it became the duty of the court to guard the
freedom of the subject.

Hence an applicant can move from one judge to another until his application is satisfied. But in Hastings (No.2) re, in 1959this principle of English Law was overruled.

Currently, the applicant has no right of successive application.

Case- Lallubai Jogibhai Patel v Union Of India

Under this case, the Supreme Court has given a ruling relating to the successive application of habeas corpus and held that an applicant has no right to file a successive
application of habeas corpus on the same grounds and on the same evidence. Whereas, if there arise fresh or new grounds then an application for the same can be filled and
will not be barred under this rule.

1. In India appeal may lie against an order relating to grant or dismissal of the application for issuance of the writ of habeas corpus before the Supreme Court under
Article 132, 133, 134 or 136. On the other hand under English Law once an order for the discharge of a person on the writ of habeas corpus is passed then there lies
no appeal against such order.

Case- R. V Secy. of State for Home Affairs

In this case, the applicant has entered the premises of the state illegally and he was from India. Therefore, he got arrested there only and detained in prison. His deportation
was pending and he requested the authority to release him for some time as he has to get married before departing for India. And authorities did him to get married and
there stated that his discharge is allowed on the application made by him and such discharge is not appealable.

1. One of the effective ways to get an immediate release from unlawful detention is via a writ of habeas corpus, irrespective of whether the person is detained in prison
or in private custody of an individual. Detention does not make physical confinement mandatory. It just means that the person is restricted from performing some
task and is in control of some authority i.e custody and control are sufficient for lodging an application for the writ of habeas corpus.

Case- Mohd. Ikram Hussain v State of U.P.

If a child is forcibly kept away from his parents or any other person is forcefully deprived of his liberty, the court will always issue the writ of habeas corpus to the person
who has custody of the aggrieved person and order the person to bring the aggrieved person before the court on the application of habeas corpus order the person in and if
found that the alleged person is deprived of his personal liberty without any lawful ground then, or for immediate release of the person is passed by the court and the
aggrieved must be set free.

For example- if a child is taken away from the lawful custody of her mother by the father and he is not allowing the child to move out or meet her mother then for the
release of the child from the custody of his father writ of habeas corpus can be issued.

Whereas, no writ of habeas corpus can be issued if it is sought against a parent for the custody of the child.

1. Article 226 of Indian constitution states that in case any application is issued before the high court for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, then house of legislature
does not possess any power for questioning or objecting on the jurisdiction of the high court to entertain such applications just because the detention in question is
made on the order of the legislature.

Case– Power, privileges and immunities of state legislature, re,

It was held by the supreme court of India that thought the speaking or general warrant has been issued by the house directing the detention of the party in contempt but, the
High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a Writ Petition for habeas corpus under Art. 226, Thus, the dispute really centers around the jurisdiction of the High Court to
entertain a habeas corpus petition and it also has the power to pass an order of interim bail.

Compensation

Ordinarily, a writ court will not award compensation while exercising their power under Article 32 or Article 226 of the Constitution. While in certain cases the court may
award monetary compensation to the person who has been illegally detained.

Case- Rudul Sah v State of Bihar

Whenever an order for release of a person from illegal detention is passed by the court under Article 32 (Supreme Court) or Article 226 (High Court) and detaining authority
claim that the person has also been released, but the fact of such release are not found and the person detained is not traceable the court may order the payment of
compensation by the detaining authority.

Lastly, it is claimed the writ of habeas corpus can only be issued after the person is detained and not to prevent a person from getting arrested.

Case- State of Maharashtra v Bhaurao Punjabrao Gawande .

In the given case the whole concept of writs were explained by Justice C.K. Thakker and Altamas Kabir. It was said by the judges that writ of habeas corpus is the first
security of civil liberty and has a great constitutional privilege. While explaining the whole principle of writ of Habeas corpus in this case it was held by the court that
thought this writ is issued to secure an individual from illegal detention but, but once the detention is made then only such writs can be issued only on an order of detention
writ of habeas corpus can’t be enforced.
Mandamus

History of this writ say that it is a command, issued in the name of the crown by the court of king’s bench to the subordinate court, inferior tribunal, board or to any
person requiring it for him to perform a public duty imposed by law. Therefore, a writ of mandamus is a command given by any high court or supreme court to the
lower court or any tribunal or board or to any other public authority to perform their public duty imposed upon them by law. It’s primary objective is to supply
defects of justice and prevent rights of the citizen.

Case- State of Mysore v K.N.Chandrasekhara

In the given case high court has issued a writ of mandamus directing the public service commission to include the names of the six petitioners in the list prepared by the
Commission under Rule 9(2) of the Rules for appointment to the cadre of Munsiffs. In the view of the High Court the appointment of ten candidates whose names were
included in the list under R. 9(2) as fit for promotion could not be disturbed, yet the six applicants should be added to the list and appointments should be made out of that
list.

Such direction as given by the high court to public service commision can also be issued against any person or body corporate also to perform their public duty.

Writ of mandamus have several highlighting features, as explained below:-

1. Writ of mandamus is a judicial remedy in the form of an order from a superior court to any government body, court, corporation or public authority to do or not
to do some specific act that the government body, court, corporation or public authority are bound to perform or not to perform under law, as the case may be. These
acts must be performed as a part of their public duty or statutory duty.

Writ of mandamus cannot be issued by the higher authority to force their lower departments to act or do something which is against the law.

So, basically this writ is a command to do and also command not to do a particular act against the law, as the case may be.

Writ of mandamus can only be issued when there exists a legal right without a legal right it can’t be issued. A person be called aggrieved person only when he is denied a
legal right by any person, court or board who has a legal duty to do something and abstains from doing it.

Case- Mani subrat Jain v State of Haryana

In the given case Justice Ray A.N.given a definition of an aggrieved person” a person is said to be an aggrieved only when his legal rights has been denied by someone who
has a legal duty to do something or denied from doing something. The denied legal right must be a legally enforceable right as well as a legally protected right before one
suffering a legal grievance can ask for a mandamus.

Existence of Legal Right

Any person seeking for writ of mandamus must show that he has a legal right to overpower the opponent against whom writ will be issued, to do or not to do some specific
act. Legal right of the petitioner is a condition precedent. Legal right must be a legally enforceable right as well as a legally protected right before claiming for mandamus.
Existence of legal right is the foundation of jurisdiction of a writ court to issue mandamus.

Case- Umakant Saran v State of Bihar

In the given case Dr. saran has challenged the order of the High Court by a special leave of appeal before the Supreme Court of India.

From the facts of the case it was observed by the court that Dr. saran was not eligible for appointment at the time the decision was taken by the High Court i.e. on March 31,
1965. Whereas, respondents 5 and 6 were so eligible and therefore, Dr. Saran, had no right to ask for a writ of mandamus. It was pointed out by the court that the purpose of
mandamus is to force the authorities to do something, it must be shown that the statute imposes a legal duty and the aggrieved person had a legal right under the Statute to
enforce its performance. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed by the court and writ of mandamus was not issued.

Case- State of M.P. V G.C. Mandawar

Supreme court held that the applicant must have a legal right to compel the performance of some duty cast on the opponent by The Constitution or any other statute. And the
duty must possess three qualities

1. Duty must be of Public Nature

2. Must not be a discretionary one
3. And duty if discretionary then the power must have been conferred by the authority and statutory provisions are made for it.

Case- CGA v K.S. Jagannathan

Supreme Court held that high court has the power to issue writs of mandamus in case the authority or government body has failed to exercise their discretionary duty or has
wrongly exercised the discretionary conferred on them by the statue.

Against whom writ of mandamus does not lie

1. Will not lie against the president or governor of a state for the performance of their duty or exercise of their power- Article 361
2. Will not lie against the state legislature for preventing them from considering laws pleaded to be violative of constitutional provision.

Case- Narinder chand Hem Raj v Lt. Governor, H.P.

In the above stated case the Sale Tax Deputy Commissioner has told one of a bidder in an auction of Indian made foreign liquor that such liquor will be exempted from tax
whereas, such exemption was not granted by the States Government and here, the Supreme Court held that court can’t issue writ to the State Government for performing
their legislative powers and neither ask legislature to make change in any law and ask execution for not performing the imposed laws.

1. Will not lie against an inferior or ministerial officer who has to obey the order of his superior according to law.
2. Neither to be issued against inferior or ministerial officer bound to obey the order of a competent authority, and even can’t compel him to do something which is a
part of his duty in that capacity.
3. Will not lie against a private individual or any private company
Case- Pragya Tools Corporation v C.A. Imanual

Justice Shelat held that an application for mandamus will not lie for an order of reinstatement to an office which is essentially of a private character, nor can such an
application be maintained to secure performance of an obligation owed by a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 towards its workmen or to resolve any
private dispute.

Court held that if a writ of mandamus could not lie against a company which is neither a statutory company nor one having public duties or responsibilities imposed upon it
by a statute, no relief could also be given by granting a declaration on the court of the agreement between the company and its workman being illegal.

1. Special remedy available before any person whose rights are being infringed under article 223 and 32 does not intended to overrule the modes of obtaining relief
by an action in civil court or by any other court. Issuance of writ under these articles is discretionary power of the court and especially in the case of issuance of
writ of mandamus.

Case- State of M.P. V Bhailal Bhai

As a general principle it is stated that if there is any unreasonable delay in seeking for this extraordinary remedy then, remedy of mandamus may not be made available.
On the other hand, even if there is no such delay, and a prima facie triable issue as regards the availability of such relief on the merits of grounds like limitation is raised
before the Court, should ordinarily refuse to issue the writ of mandamus.

1. For issuance of writ of mandamus, one of the essential requirements is that there must be a demand by the person seeking relief and the same demand must
have been refused by the concerned authority.

In “Halsbury’s Law of England” it is stated that:-

As a general rule party seeking a writ of mandamus must know that what was the actual requirement, for considering whether or not he should comply, and it must be
proved by evidence that the demand was distinct by the part and that demand is met with a refusal therefore, prerequisite for mandamus is the acknowledgment of the
person seeking mandamus is must, about what he was required to do.

Case- Kamini Kumar Das Chaudhary v State of West Bengal

In the given case petitioner kamini kumar was charged with an act of interdisciplinary by disobeying the orders of D.C.E and also for being disloyal to state government of
West Bengal and for not making perfunctionay search and not collecting other information and received a suspension from the department.

Petitioner filed an appeal but the same was dismissed by the commissioner of police as he felt himself competitive enough to deal with it.

The main point raised by the petitioner are two:-

1. He was and always will be a member of west bengal police and not calcutta police.
2. Deputy commissioner of police was a lower authority in rank than authority of petitioner and there was a violation of article 311(1)

Writ of mandamus is not a writ of right and a person invoking the special jurisdiction of the court, for the extraordinary remedy by way of a writ was required to be diligent.
Therefore, lastly it was held that the writ of mandamus is a discretionary writ. And the charges against the petitioner was such that even if he shows any technical flaw then
also one would refuse to interfere.

Case- venugopalan v commissioner

Petitioner in the above mentioned case is seeking for writ of mandamus claiming that let him be the poojari of Sri Chelliamman cum Ayyanar temple, situated in
Koonancherry Village, LPulla Boothangudi (PO), Papanasam Taluk, Thanjavur District. As his ancestors are serving as poojari in that temple since last 300 years.

Madras High Court held that writ of mandamus can’t be issued in this case as the temple is under the authority of Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment
and there is no demand made by the petitioner to the appropriate authority. Therefore, petitioner is ordered to move an appropriate application before an appropriate
authority.

1. The court to which application is made for issue of writ of mandamus must not consider itself as a court of appeal for deciding the matters of administrative
authority. The court should not examine the correctness or any other considerable point of the case on merits.

Court can’t even question the discretion of the administrative authorities whereas, when such discretion is illegal or given in case of excess jurisdiction or with malafide
intent or the authority making such decisions are influenced by external contents or materials, then the court may do so.

Case- Rameshwar prasad Kedarnath v District Magistrate

In this case emphasis has been laid down on Article 19(1)(g) on the right to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business, subject, of course, as laid
down in Article 19(6), to any reasonable restrictions in the interests of the general public as may be placed on it. Here the district court has refused the grant of licence to the
applicant on the ground other than licensing authority can legitimately take into consideration.

Therefore, a misuse of the power by licencing authority by not renewing the licence on illegal grounds and misusing their discretionary power can frustrate the very
purpose of the welfare State established by the Constitution of this Country.

Though on the discretion of administrative authorities court can’t raise any question but where it is seen that such discretion is illegal then a writ of mandamus can be
issued against the inferior authority.

Hence, it was held by the Allahabad High Court that order of the District Magistrate, Kanpur of refusing to renew the petitioner’s licence will be quashed, and a writ in the
nature of mandamus will be issued to the District Magistrate, Kanpur, directing him to consider the application of the petitioner for the renewal of his licence on its merits.

Case- State of Bombay v Laxmidas Ranchhoddas

Bombay High Court has given its observation on the main and principal object of a writ of mandamus and held that writ of mandamus is issued to compel Government or its
officers to carry out their statutory obligation and before issuing this writ court has to check that, Government or its officers do not overstep the limits and the bounds that
the statute has prescribed for the exercise of their power.

Wherever there are certain conditions attached by the legislature with the power, without which such powers can’t be exercised and the officer possessed with the power
even without satisfying the condition there also court can intervene and prevent officer from acting contrary to law.

1. Ultra vires act of Administrative Authorities

Mainly the writ of mandamus is issued whenever an administrative authorities acted ultra vires and also for preventing the government or any law making body from
enforcing any unconstitutional act or notification. That is to say that whenever any administrative authority perform any work beyond their power or any government
/legislative authority enforcing any law or notification which is unconstitutional then the writ of mandamus may be issued to stop the authorities from doing so.
Case- State of Bombay v Bombay Education Society

Facts- Respondent no.1 is an education society of bombay running as a recognised Anglo- Indian School named Barnes High School at Deolali. This education society receives
aid from State of Bombay. The state of Bombay issued an order dated 6th jan 1954. Mainly the operative part of the order states that no primary or secondary school shall
from the date of issue of this order take admission to the class where enlgish is used as a language of delivering instruction to any pupil other than pupil belonging to a
section of citizens whose language is english only like Anglo-Indians and citizens of non-Asiatic descent.

So, one citizen of indian of chritian community let say A claiming that English is the mother tongue of his daughter and on the other side there was another Indian citizen
lets say Z claiming that gujrati is the mother tongue of his son, both of them were denied admission on the grounds of aforesaid order of their respective wards.

Therefore, two faculty from the society filed a writ petition under Article 226 before the High Court of Bombay for the issue of writ of mandamus praying that state of
Bombay and its officers must be restrained from enforcing the aforesaid order and alloying the society to take admission of non anglo Indian citizens or citizens from asiatic
descent and educate them all through the medium of english and the similar application was made by A&Z for allowing the admission of their wards. Both the applications
were heard together and accepted by the High Court and ordered in favour of the petitioner as prayed.

State of Bombay moved to Supreme Court on appeal.

There were two important questions raised on the aforesaid order-

1. Rights of the students of non anglo Indian or asiatic descent community to get admission in Respondent society.
2. Right of the education society to admit non-Anglo- Indian students and students of Asiatic descent.

Held- Supreme Court held that –

1. Impugned order issued by the state government of Bombay is void, as it violates the Fundamental right of non anglo-Indian students and students of non-Asiatic
descent guaranteed to all the citizens under Article 29(2) of the Indian Constitution,1950. Article states the right of every citizen to get admission in educational
institutions aided or maintained by the state.
2. As the provisions of the said article is applicable to all the citizens whether they belong to a majority or minority community and protection given under said article
extent against state or anybody who violate the right conferred.
3. Clause 2 of Article 337 of Indian Constitution impose obligations on the Anglo-Indian schools to make 40% reservation in annual admission for non Anglo-Indian
students. Hence, there is an obligation imposed on the Barnes High School to take admission of at least 40% non Anglo- Indian students and with the impugned order
this can’t be possible and also for receiving grants from the government 40% admission of non Anglo- indian is condition precedent. Therefore, the impugned order
is unconstitutional as violative of Article 337 and Article 29. The said impugned order is preventing the Anglo-Indian schools from performing their constitutional
duties and exposes them to the risk of for-feiting their constitutional right to the special grant.

From this decision of the High Court and Supreme Court it was made clear that writ of mandamus was issued against State of bombay and its authority for preventing them
from issuing an unconstitutional order which is violative of Article 29 and Article 337 of Indian Constitution which imposes right to education to all the students in
government aided or maintained institution and imposes a legal obligation on the Anglo-Indian educational institution to take admission of non Anglo-Indian students as
requirement for seeking grant respectively.

Case- State of Bihar v D.N. Ganguly

Facts– in 1954 government of Bihar notify an industrial dispute between the management of Bata shoes co. Patna and their 31 workmen under the powers conferred in said
Government by section 7 read with section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Subject-matter of dispute was regarding the dismissal of the workmen in question was
justified or not and if such dismissal was not justified then whether they will be entitled to some reinstatement or any other relief?an industrial tribunal was constituted
with a single member.

Then in january 1955, also another similar case was referred by the government of Same Bata shoes co. Ltd. and its 29 other workers to the same tribunal which was
previously constituted.

While the proceedings of these two references were pending before the tribunal, the government of Bihar issued third notification on september,1955. By this third
notification government proposed to supplant the two earlier notifications, by which it combined the two disputes together, ad bata mazdoor union to the dispute and refer
it for adjudication before the tribunal. Question involved in the referred dispute was regarding justification of dismissal of 60 workmen, and for what relief they are entitled
to? No receipt of third notification tribunal cancelled the hearing of prior two references and direct that files for said references should be closed.

After that Bata co. and its workmen filed two separate application before the High Court under Article 226 and 227 for quashing the third notification claiming it be illegal
and “ultra vires”. Patna High Court on 4 April 1956 held that government has no power to supplant the earlier notifications in lieu of which quashed the third notification
and issued a writ of certiorari also issued a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the industrial tribunal to proceed in the first two references made to it and provide a
conclusion in according to law.

Two appeals were filled by State of Bihar before the Supreme Court urging that the order of the High Court was erroneous.

Supreme Court confirm the findings of the High Court of Patan, that cancellation of first two notification by the government is illegal and ultra vires. It was held that in
making a reference under section 10(1) by appropriate government is an administrative act and the preliminary step to their function under this section is to form an
opinion in regard to the actual existence of industrial dispute. Therefore court find more appropriate to issue a writ of mandamus against the ultra vires act of the appellant
in respect of third impugned notification. And appeals were dismissed by the court.

Special Judicial Remedy

Writ of mandamus is a special judicial remedy and issuance of this writ requires attention to the claim asserted and no delay. Thought the law of limitation does not apply on
writ proceeding but doctrine of delay and laches applies to such proceedings.

Continuing Mandamus

Primary object of writ of mandamus is to issue a command for directing the authority to do some work or abstain from doing some act. Whereas, in cases where it is shown
to the court that mere issuance of order will not fulfill the purpose unless there is any monitoring of court, then in such cases instead of issuing any final order or direction
and disposing the case, court may issue an interim direction from time-to-time and the authorities to whom such directions are issued, have to follow them. This whole
process of issuing interim order/direction is known as “continuing Mandamus”.

Mostly issued in environmental cases, particularly in public interest litigation.

Case- Vineet Narain v Union of India

Allegations raised in this writ petition filed in public interest under Article 32 were that

1. Government agencies like the CBI and the revenue authorities had failed to perform their legal duties similarly as they had failed to investigate matters arising out of
 the seizure of the Jan diaries ;
2. That the prosecution of terrorists had led to the discovery that there is financial support to them through politician via illegal means using tainted funds obtained
through `hawala’ transactions
3. This investigation had also disclosed a connection between politicians, bureaucrats and criminals, the politicians who after getting into the power forget all the
promises they made to the public for seeking vote after receiving the seat and money they wrongfully use their power to receive money from unlawful sources and
given the same money for unlawful consideration
4. The CBI and other Government agencies had failed to investigate the matter i.e. they failed to perform their duties well, take it to its logical conclusion and prosecute
all persons who were found to have committed and offence as just because of their leniency such alleged offences are being committed by Higher officers
5. That this leniency by CBI and other authorities, was done with a view to protect the persons involved, who were very influential and powerful so that these
authorities are protected from bad effects of their unlawful use of power.
6. That the matter discloses the connectivity between crime and corruption at high places in public life and it posed a serious threat to the integrity, security and
economy of the nation corruption and crime go hand in hand

7. That probity in public life, the rule of law, in the interest of justice and for the preservation of democracy required that the Government agencies must be compelled
to duly perform their legal obligations and to proceed in accordance with law against.

Prayed reliefs were that

1. That alleged offences must be investigated in accordance with law.

2. An appropriate officer must be appointed to make required inquiry.

The procedure adopted by the court to investigate the matter properly and deliver justice was of “Continuing Mandamus” and issued directions to the CBI regarding
investigation and order not to report the progress of the investigation to officers holding high post in politics, such a direction is given just to maintain fairness in
investigation and also to maintain credibility. During the proceedings of the case were pending before the court, continues investigation is going on and Attorney General is
directed to report the progress of the investigation from time to time in order to have faith in agencies making investigation and ensuring that those agencies were not
continuing to drag their feet. With the issuing of the writ of “continuing mandamus” agencies perform their statutory duties.

In this case only path of writ of continuing mandamus was a new tool found because of the requirements of the case.

Court held that there are ample number powers covered under Article 32 read with Article 142. Issuing a formal order does not satisfy the purpose of the Article. Every court
must issue such direction under Article 32 which satisfy its purpose. Therefore, court issued guidelines and directions. Laid guidelines require rigid compliance, till
legislature step into the matter and substitute those guidelines with proper laws.

To achieve the object of the writ a fair, honest and expeditious investigation was demanded, Investigation into every person’s accusation or person reasonably be suspected
of crime. Duty of the court was to make sure that the CBI and other government agencies perform their duties in accordance with law. Court did not require to go into the
merits of the case in continuing mandamus proceedings.

In the view of the proceedings of this case there is an urgent need for state government to set up rigid and credible mechanism for selection of police chief and other officers
because the problem raised in this case is increasing and getting more serious day by day.

Most Popular Writ

This writ is the most popular writ amongst all in India. Mandamus is a supplementary means of substantial justice, when there is no specific legal remedy available before
any person for protection of their rights given by law and the court is satisfied that the administrative authorities have not acted according to the law then the writ may be
issued.

Good Faith

And lastly it can be said that the application for writ of mandamus must have been made in good faith and not with ambiguous motive and ulterior purposes. Purpose of
application should be grant of justice and not to harass the respondent. And it may not be refused only on the ground of availability of alternative remedy.

Case- Himmatlal Harilal Mehta v State of M.P.

Appellant in this case represent a company named- C. Parakh and company India Ltd. which is a registered company under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1913.
Its head office is situated in bombat, and several other branches in the state of M.P. business of appellant company was that of cotton. Appellant co. sells cotton bales to
several mills and individuals in many places of M.P. and Bombay, under the system regulated by textile commissioner at Bombay. These cotton bales are sent by rail under
insurance.

Under the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 (Act I XXI of 1947), cotton was declared liable to sales tax on the 11th of April, 1949, and since that date the
appellant commenced paying the tax in respect of the purchases made by it til december 1950. Further he declined to pay tax, because he realised that payment of tax could
not be made liable in state of Madhya Pradesh because the transaction done in State of M.P. are not the transaction within state and for transactions done outside the state,
State Government does not possess the power to make laws in respect of such transactions.

In this writ petition it was alleged by the appellant before the hon’ble court was that an unjust and illegal imposition acts an an illegal restriction on trade and violates
Fundamental Rights. It was alleged that section 2(g)(presently this provision is repealed) of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 was illegal and ultra vires.
This contention was explained with certain valid points in the arguments stating that under Constitutional law sales tax could only be collected in the state where the goods
whose sales were being done, were delivered for consumption.

High Court in spite of all these findings refused to issue the writ of mandamus under Article 226 on the ground explaining that writ of mandamus can only be issued to
compel an authority to do or abstain from doing some act, in cases where the action of authority is dependent upon some action of petitioner as in this case. The petitioner
had not even made his return and no demand for the tax could be made from him.

Then, in the petitioner before the hon’ble court contention raised were that set out the provision 2(g) from the act was declared ultra vires.

It was held by the court that his infringement of fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) was entitled to relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. It was also held by the
court with reference to a judgment of State of Bombay v The United Motors (India) Ltd. that the principle that court will not issue writ when adequate alternative
remedy was available could not apply in this case because when any person comes before the court with an allegation to infringement of fundamental right, the
remedy provided by the Act is of an onerous and burdensome character and therefore, could not be denied in such cases.
Prohibition

Writ of prohibition is as old as common law. Initially it was used to limit the jurisdiction of ecclesiastial by restraining them from acting without or in excess of their
jurisdiction and later it is used by common law courts.

Before the enactment of the Constitution of India, there were three charters under which court use to exercise their power and after the enforcement of the constitution
High Court and Supreme Court exercise the power to issue this writ.
It is an extraordinary writ of preventive nature. It prevents courts, tribunal, quasi judicial bodies and other officers from exercising their power beyond their jurisdiction or
exercising those powers which are not vested on them.

Following features must be noted for this writ:-

Purpose

Writ of prohibition is issued to the court or any tribunal to bar them from doing something what they are about to do. This bar is applied whenever a subordinate court or
tribunal hears the matter beyond their jurisdiction or on matters on which they have no jurisdiction.

Case- East India Commercial Co. Ltd. v Collector of Customs

In the given case an observation is given by the Supreme Court that writ of prohibition is an order directing inferior courts and tribunals to stop from proceeding therein on
the ground that the proceeding are taking place with excess jurisdiction or lack of jurisdiction.

Case- S. Govinda Menon v Union of India

In this case the Supreme Court has explained the jurisdiction of the court for grant of a writ of prohibition. It says that power to issue writ of prohibition is primarily
supervisory and the main object for behind the writ of prohibition is to restrain inferior courts or tribunals from exceeding their jurisdictional limits. It is well settled law
derived from decided cases that writ of prohibition lies not only in case of excess of jurisdiction or for abuse of judicial power but writ lies also in cases of where the actions
are taken in contravention to the rules of Natural Justice.

But the writ does not lie to correct the course, practice or procedure of inferior courts or tribunal, also to correct the wrong decision of inferior court on the merits because
issue can be issued only when the subject matter of the plea is a question of law.

Writ of prohibition can’t be issued when there is an error of law unless such error makes it go outside its jurisdiction. Therefore it is clear from this case that if there is want
of jurisdiction then the matter is coram non judice and a writ of prohibition is lie otherwise on any other ground other than on point of jurisdiction writ of prohibition can’t
be issued.

Grounds for issuing writ of prohibition

1. Absence or excess of jurisdiction– where there is an absence of jurisdiction or total lack of lack of jurisdiction.
2. Violation of natural justice– In case where the principle of natural justice have not been observed or if observed there is a violation of those principles. For
example, if the opposite party have not been served with the notice and not been heard. Then the writ of prohibition can be issued.
3. Unconstitutionality of Statute– whenever any tribunal or court proceed to act under law which is ultra vires or unconstitutional, a writ of prohibition can be issued
against the proceedings.
4. Infringement of Fundamental Right– where the impugned action is infringing any fundamental right of the petitioner then the writ of prohibition can be issued.
5. Error of law Apparent on the face of Record

Nature

Prohibition is writ of right not a writ of course and is of preventive nature rather than corrective. The main object of this writ is to prevent unlawful assumption of
jurisdiction. Therefore, writ does not lie in case of irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction or jurisdiction has been exercised improperly or erroneously. Availability of an
alternate remedy does not create an absolute bar on issuance of a writ of prohibition.

This writ can be issued during the proceedings are pending before a judicial and quasi-judicial body and if the proceedings have been terminated and authority became
functus officio then in such cases writ of prohibition can’t be issued. In such cases writ of certiorari may be issued.

Case- Hari Vishnu Kamath v Ahmad Ishaque

In this case appellant and respondent 1 to 5 were nominated for Lok Sabha election from some constituency in Madhya Pradesh. After that respondent 4 &5 withdrawn from
election. Election result declared stating that respondent 1 secured highest no. of seats followed by appellant.

Issued against

Writ of prohibition is much in common with certiorari in its scope as well as in the rules of its governance. Therefore both these writs lies against a judicial and quasi-
judicial body and not against any executive authorities. Both these writs are concerned mainly with Public Law.

Distinction between Certiorari and Prohibition

These two writs are that both these are issued at different stages of proceedings. One is issued to the inferior court when such court acted without any jurisdiction then the
person against the proceedings are taking place can move to the superior court for a writ of prohibition, whereas on the other hand for a writ of certiorari court have to hear
the matter and gives decision on that and the aggrieved party can move to the superior court of issuance of writ.further the order may be passed for quashing the decision
on the ground of want of jurisdiction.

In cases where inferior court might have passed the order but the same does not completely dispose of the case so it might be necessary to apply both the writs- certiorari for
quashing the decided issues and prohibition for barring further proceedings for continuing the case and deciding left issues. Like in cases where interim orders had been
passed.

Case- Hari Vishnu Kamath v Ahmad Ishaque

In the above case supreme court held that in cases where there is a requirement for prayer of certiorari as well as prohibition and the in the application not prayer of
certiorari has been made then it would be open to the court to issue the writ and stop further proceedings which are affecting the decision.

But in case the proceedings have ended then seeking for prohibition will be too late and writ of certiorari must be a proper remedy for quashing. Clearing on the point it was
also held that writ of prohibition will lie when the proceeding are pending to a large extent and writ of certiorari will be issued when then case has been terminated in a
final decision.

Where the proceedings of inferior courts are partly within the jurisdiction and partly without it, then the writ of prohibition will lie to the extent of excess of
jurisdiction.

Case- Sewapujanrai Indrasanari Ltd. v Collector of Customs

It was held that the Central Government may, from time to time, by notification in the Official Gazette, prohibit or restrict the bringing or taking by sea or by land goods of
any specified description into or out of India across any customs frontier as defined by the Central Government.” and the High Court may issue writ of prohibition for
prohibiting the customs authorities from enforcing the invalin conditions without the consult of the Central Government.
 1. In case of Bengal Immunity Co. v State of Bihar it was observed by the Supreme Court that the existence of an alternative remedy that is adequate and equally
effective remedy may be a matter that can be taken into consideration by the High Court in granting the writ. It is a writ of right not a discretionary writ and nature
of writ of prohibition is much of corrective one rather than preventive.

Presence of an alternate remedy does not impose an absolute bar on issuing writ of prohibition.But presence of an alternate remedy will be more relevant in context of
certiorari.

Certiorari

Writ of certiorari has been defined as one of the most effective and efficient remedies taken from common law. Certiorari means “to certify”. It is an order issued by the High
Court to an inferior court or any authority exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions.

The main object of this writ is to keep the inferior courts, judicial and quasi-judicial authorities within their limits of jurisdiction and if the act in access of their jurisdiction
their decision will be quashed by the High Court and Supreme Court by issuing a writ of certiorari.

Lord Atkin stated that writ of certiorari may be issued “wherever any body of person having legal authority to determine questions affecting the rights of subjects, and
having the duty to act judicially, act in excess of their legal authority.” This statement has been approved by the Supreme Court in many cases like in Province of Bombay v
Khushaldas and held the four components of this writ that are-

1. Body of persons
2. Such body is having some legal authority
3. Legal duty for determining the question affecting the rights of the subjects
4. Duty to act judicially

Nature

It is a great corrective writ by which superior court may exercise supervisory power on inferior courts and judicial or quasi-judicial tribunals. By exercising such power
their records and proceedings are brought under review and the sole object become to prevent abuse of law.

Earlier writ of certiorari was used as a writ of error. It was invoked only in criminal matters and later on was also used in civil cases.

Writ of certiorari may not be issued against

1. an individual
2. company
3. Private authority
4. An association or tribunals having no judicial or quasi-judicial powers.
5. Also can’t be issued for making declaration that an act or statute is ultra virus or unconstitutional.

Grounds

A writ of certiorari may be issued on the following grounds:-

Want or Excess of Jurisdiction

When an inferior court or tribunal act in excess of jurisdiction or act without jurisdiction or fails to act then, Writ of Certiorari come into the picture for correcting the
errors of jurisdiction.

Wherever there is a defect in jurisdiction or power writ of certiorari must be issued. In case of Rafiq Khan v State of U.P.
Facts of the case- section 85 of Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 a sub-divisional Magistrate does not have power to modify the order or sentence of Panchayati Adalat.
Whereas, he can either quash the order or cancel the jurisdiction panchayati Adalat. In this case sub- Division Magistrate has modified the order by maintaining the
conviction of the accused in one of the offences and quashed his conviction in respect of the other offences, in this manner the order passed by the Panchayati Adalat has
been modified by sub- Division Magistrate.

Held- Allahabad High Court held that order of sub- Divisional Magistrate is contrary with the provision of section 85 and quased the same order by issuing a writ of
certiorari.

Therefore, by reviewing this case it is clear that want of jurisdiction may arise from the nature of the subject matter of the proceeding and court can’t decide some of its
parts and let the other be untouched. Enquiry of the whole case should be conducted together.

Similarly in cases where the inferior courts have wrongfully denied to exercise jurisdiction vested in it, writ of certiorari may be issued to quash the decision of inferior
court and decide the case falling within their jurisdiction.

In cases of conditional powers i.e there are certain powers vested in the court that can be exercised only when certain jurisdictional facts exist otherwise if court or tribunal
exercised those powers without availability of those jurisdictional facts, even the assumption of jurisdiction by the court that such facts exists would not be supported and
can be removed by a writ of certiorari.

Case- Express newspaper Ltd. v Workers

In this case the question on which the jurisdiction industrial tribunal decided was whether the dispute is an industrial dispute or an non- industrial one? The Supreme Court
held that if the industrial tribunal assumes to have jurisdiction over a non- industrial dispute then it can be challenged before the High Court and the High Court has the
power to issue a writ of certiorari for the same question.power to issued an appropriate writ of High Court is not subject to any question.

Violation of Procedure or Disregard of principle of Natural Justice

To set aside any decision given in violation of the principle of natural justice, writ of certiorari will be issued.

There are two principles of natural justice recognised by law:-

Audi alteram partem( hear the other side)– means that both sides must be given equal opportunity of hearing i.e both the side should be given full and fair chance to
present their side of the case. Every judicial or quasi- judicial body must give equal and reasonable opportunity to the parties to make their representation. In other words it
can be said that the party whose civil rights are affected in any proceeding before the court must have reasonable notice of the case he has to meet with and an opportunity
of stating his case. This rule commands the authority deciding the case to give both the parties to the case an equal opportunity for presenting their case and to correct and
contradict any relevant statement.

Case- Collector of Customs v A.H.A. Rahiman

The collector of customs in this case passed an order of confiscation of goods without any notice and enquiry, The Madras High Court held that order passed by the collector
was without hearing and knowing all the key points of the case and held that the same is contrary to the principles of natural justice and hence, Under Article 226 High court
issue a writ of certiorari to quash the order of customs collector.

Case- Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v A.P. SRTC

Supreme Court held that fundamental principle of natural justice states that both the parties to the case be given equal opportunity to make their representation but where it
is expressly provided in the act a right to a personal hearing then the authority deciding the case must hear the case personally.

The procedure followed in the instant case whereby the Home Secretary, in charge of Transport, himself a party to the dispute, heard the objections and the Chief Minister
decided them, violated those principles, and the order of the State Government approving the scheme, therefore,must be quashed.

Right of hearing does not include right of cross-examination statement was given in the case of State of J&K v Bakshi Gulam Mohammad.

Further a sub- rule to this principle states that every decision of tribunal must be accompanied with a reason for giving such decision whereas this rule does not apply in
English Common- Law. and in India also this rule is not a universally established rule though in certain cases in rigidly followed. Where a rule or any provision is laid down
in the for giving reasons then the judicial or quasi-judicial authority must obviously provide the same and give reasoned decisions in all the cases.

Usually reasoned decisions or duty to give reasons arises where the statute provides an appeal, review or revision against the order passed. But those reasons given by the
tribunal or inferior court, would become easier for the court to make further decision and the reason will make give a clear picture of the authority given the decision.

Bias and interest– the second principle of Natural Justice states that no one should be a judge in its own case. Elaborating the statement means that the judges deciding the
case does not have any interest in the case in which he providing his decision because it is a human tendency that a person can be wrong in his own eyes therefore biasness
will emanate and aim for fair justice to all could not be reached.

So, there are two principles for governing this doctrine of bias and interest

1. No one shall be judge in its own case.

2. Just should be manifestly and undoubtedly seem to be done.

Any judicial entity as “subject to bias” when he is in favour or against any party to the dispute or where it can be assumed that bias exist then he should not take part in the
decision. Also where there exists any pecuniary interest(or any other interest) of the person sitting to provide justice to all will become reason for his disqualification in
giving decision in that case.

Reason given for this principle in the case of A.P. SRTC v Satyanarayana Transport by The Supreme Court is that while delivering judgement and providing justice to the
parties, the person delivering the judgment must give his adjudication with a free and independent mind without any indication of bias towards either side of the case.
Neither there should be any pressure on his that will divert him from delivering justice and mislead him while fulfilling the purpose of his seat.

Case- Manik lal v Prem chand Singhvi

In this case appellant was an advocate, who was alleged of misconduct for which bar council tribunal was appointed to make an enquiry, tribunal consist of 3 members, one
of them was chairman who has given his Vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party in proceeding under section 145 of CrPC and argued the case on the same date on
behalf the the opposite party only and appellant act as a pleader to the proceedings.

The appellant raised the point that the tribunal was not properly constituted as the chairman of the tribunal conducting the inquiry of his case is arguing the matter on
behalf of the opposite party and will clearly be assumed and believed that there must be some bias. The tribunal given its judgment on which appellant was convicted and
therefore he filed an appeal before the supreme court for issuing a writ of certiorari to quash the judgment of tribunal.
Therefore after going through the facts of the case supreme court issue a writ of certiorari for quashing the decision of tribunal on the ground of violation of the principle of
Natural Justice.

Error of law apparent on the face of the record

It means that there is either a clear ignorance of law or the provisions of law are wrongly interpreted. An error of fact though may be grave but can’t be corrected by writ of
certiorari. Power of high court to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and while exercising such jurisdiction court is not entitled to act as an appellate court.

Error of law can’t be established if it was not self-evident and the same is demanding an argument or examination for establishing. In the other words error of law must be
seen with open eyes and for establishing such an error there should be no need of any examination or further enquiry or argument in the case.

Error of law usually occur when there are two possible interpretations of the provision and the subordinate court has chosen one among them, the error occurred may be
cross or patent. Whereas, this test afford satisfaction in majority of cases but not infallible. An error that might be considered by one judge as self-evident might not be
considered by another due to which a clear and exhaustive definition of error can’t be put forth, each case has different facts and upon those facts only its determination
must be done.

Case- Syed Yakoob v Radhakrishnan

Facts- Respondent and appellant are business rivals. The transport appellate tribunal, mainly focused its decision on believe that the appellant had a workshop at one
terminus of the route in question, and the respondent only has its business and workshop at intermediate station of the route, and issued permit to the appellant.
Respondent moved an application to the High Court for a writ of certiorari on the ground that tribunal while making the decision failed to consider material evidence
adduced by him as believing that he does not workshop at the terminus and on the same ground High Court quashed the decision of tribunal.

Whereas, on application to the Supreme Court it is found that the question raised in the case before the high court was a pure question of facts and The High Court has no
jurisdiction to interfere in the matters decided on facts by the tribunal. If there is a failure in considering the material evidence by the tribunal then that will become eroor
on the face of record.

It was held by Justice Gajenderagadkar that by a writ of certiorari error on the face of record can be correct but not an error of fact.

Cases where error of fact might be impugned on the ground of error of law:-

1. Mistakenly refuse to admit material evidence, those can be admitted.

2. Admitted evidences that are not admissible and the same influenced the findings of the case.
3. There was a finding of facts without any evidence.

Judicial order passed by The High Court in respect of the proceedings pending before it can’t be corrected by a writ of certiorari. The supreme court also is not competent to
issue a writ of certiorari for protection a person’s fundamental right. In other words a plea stating that the order passed by the court is affecting his or any person’s
fundamental rights can’t be entertained by the supreme court in a petition under Article 32.

A writ of certiorari can also be issued for declaring any act or ordinance unconstitutional. And therefore those acts or ordinance will be quashed and declared
invalid.
Case- S. Govindrao Menon v Union of India

Supreme Court held that Certiorari can only be issued by the High Court for quashing the decisions of subordinate court. But by this writ High Court can’t quash decision of
other high court or of its own bench.

Case- Jagdish Prasad Vs. Iqbal Kaur & Ors

This case in respect of the judgment given in Surya Dev Rai v Ram Chander Rai. “order given in that case was that an order of a civil court can be amended in a writ
jurisdiction under Article 226”. And in the present case court has expressed his disagreement in regard to this view.

insofar as correction of or any interference with judicial orders of civil court by a writ of certiorari is concerned. Under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court can
not issue a writ of certiorari. Article 227 of the Constitution imposes power in the High Courts of superintendence which is to be very rarely exercised, only to keep tribunals
and courts within the bounds of their authority.

Under this Article only, orders of both civil and criminal courts can be examined only in exceptional cases when their is continues miscarriage of justice has been
occasioned. Such power, can not be exercised to correct a mistake of fact and of law.

In this case the distinction between the exercise of powers of Article 226 and 227 is made.

The alleged statement of surya case in the present case is that the judicial order passed by civil courts can be reversed or amended by the writ under Article 226 via
exercising the power under a writ of certiorari. Therefore with this view appellant moved before the hon’ble court with a special leave petition contending that writ petition
under Article 226 against a civil court order is not maintainable.

So with all the contentions of surya case and the arguments of the petitioner by referring other case like rupa ashok case( landmark case of curative petition)it was observed
by the court that

1. A well settled principle states that technicalities of prerogative writ in english law has no role to play in our constitutional law.
2. Writ of certiorari can be issued by the superior court to an inferior court to certify its record for examination.
3. A High Court can’t issue a writ to another High Court.neither from one bench of the High Court to another bench of the same court.
4. As high courts are constituted as inferior courts in our constitution framework.

And with all the arguments and evidences it was held by the hon’ble court that-

1. Judicial orders of civil court can’t be amended or reversed by a writ issued under Article 226 of the constitution.
2. Also it was made clear that jurisdiction under Article 226 is different from Jurisdiction under Article 227

And the decision given in the present case by the court is contrary to the decision of Surya Dev Rai case hence the views made in that case was overruled by this case.
Image Source: https://bit.ly/2N2uwcA

Quo Warranto

Writ of quo warranto have following features:-

1. Object– prevent the person from wrongfully or forcefully holding any office or from continuing the office. By writ of quo warranto court has the authority to ask the
holder of the office that by what authority he is holding the office.

Earlier in England this writ was issued by the king or on his behalf against any person who claim or take any office, or privileges of The Crown. And later this writ was
misused by the authorities that led to substitution in proceedings by way of information.

Writ can be issued only if the office in question is a public office and any person claiming a writ must establish this fact first. Also it needs to be proved that the office in
question is usurped without legal authority. Therefore that lead to an enquiry that the person claimed to be usurped the office is appointed legally or not.

Case- University of Mysore v C.D. Govind Rao

Facts- respondent claim that appointment of appellant no. 2 is illegal as he does not fulfill the first condition mentioned in the advertised inviting application. In respect of
which High Court issued the writ of quo warranto and held the appoint of respondent no. 2 (Anniah Gowda) illegal. Appellant raise an appeal before the Supreme Court. The
decision of the High Court was held incorrect by the court, as High Court didn’t take into consideration the Degree of Master of Arts of the Durham University obtained by
Anniah Gowda.

It was held that the High Court is correct in finding that Anniah did not possess a high second class degree of an Indian University but he did possess the alternative
qualification of Master of Arts of a foreign University.
The writ of quo warranto acts as a weapon for judiciary to control the execution from making appointments to public office against law. It also protects a citizen from being
deprived of public office to which he has a right.

1. Public Office- any office in which there is some interest of public is known as public offices.

Case- Anand Bihari Mishra v Ram Sahay

In this case the office of speaker of a legislative assembly is held a public office and writ of quo warranto can be issued for inquiring the appointment made.

It can also lie to question the appointment of a High Court judge.

Case- Shiam Sunder v State of Punjab

In the given case writ petition was filed under article 226 before the Punjab and Haryana High Court by municipality requesting an order in the nature of quo warranto,
enquiring the elected member of municipality, and on the inquiry it was found that 10 elected members of Municipality Board were appointed wrongfully and their seats
were declared vacant.

Delay

Question of delay does not arises in presenting a petition for this writ in which person to function in certain capacity is challenged. Cause of action for a writ of quo warranto
is continuing as if the appointment of an officer is made illegally then every day of his office will lead to a new cause of action therefore due to which petitions can’t be
rejected on the ground of delay.

1. Nature- Issuing a writ of quo warranto is discretionary in nature and it is not necessary in all cases the writ can be issued by the court. In case where the person is
holding the office from a long time and there was no complain against him in the past and the writ of quo warranto is causing annoyance then High Court or
Supreme Court in its discretion may refuse to issue the writ of quo warranto.
2. Nature of office for which writ is claimed- Office in respect of which writ of quo warranto is claimed must be of substantive character and should not be of Private
nature.

Case- Jamalpur Arya Samaj v D. Ram

Writ petition was moved to the High Court by the petitioner against the members of the working committee of Bihar Raj Aryan Pratinidhi i.e is a private religion association.
Court dismissed the petition on the ground that a writ of quo warranto can’t be issued against a private association.

Who can apply

An application for writ of quo warranto can be made by a private person challenging the legality of appointment in public office even though the person may not have any
personal interest in that or may not be aggrieved by such appointment directly.

Case- G.D Karkare v T.L. Shevde

Application for writ of quo warranto is not regarding any non- performance of duty by the authority appoint neither it seek to enforce any right. What is in question is the
right of the non-applicant to hold the office and an order that is passed is an order ousting him from that office. In other words the question dealt by this writ is whether the
appointment made for the questioned public office is legal or not.

As any citizens apply for a writ of quo warranto, may not be having any personal interest in the matter, there he possesses the position of a relater.

1. Conditions- Before issuing the writ of quo warranto certain conditions needs to be fulfilled:-

1. Office in question must be of public nature

2. It must be of a substantive character
3. Office must be of Statutory Nature
4. Actual occupancy- the person holding the public office must have been in the actual occupancy of the office and assert his right to claim it.

Alternative Remedy

If there is an availability of any alternative and effective remedy to the applicant, the court may not issue writ of quo warranto and assign her to seek for that remedy.
Therefore it can be concluded that a writ of quo warranto can be refused on availability of an alternative remedy by making an election petition available to the
petitioner/applicant. But in case the objection raised by the petitioner falls outside the statutory remedy then alternate remedy can’t become a ground for rejection for a writ
of quo warranto.

Prerogative Writs

Prerogative means an extra privilege. In English Law, prerogative means a discretionary power that exceeds and is unaffected by any other power; the special prominence
that the monarch has over and above all others, as a consequence of his or her sovereignty.these writs are especially associated with the king.

All the five writs we have discussed above are known as prerogative writs. Earlier these writs are known as prerogative writs whereas, nowadays they are known as
extraordinary remedies.usually these writs are issued on the strength of inner power of the court and to grant justice to all. These writs have been issued as a remedy in case
of any violation of fundamental rights of the citizens.

When the prerogative writs originated it was said that writs are peculiar to the king himself and this theory is valid in certain obsolete and obsolescent writs-

Writ de non procedendo rege inconsulto, as “not to proceed to judgement if the King has not been consulted.” The purpose of this writ is to quashes any order which was
passed without the consultation of king

Scire facias a latin maxim meaning make known this writ was issued for the purpose of cancelling the royal grants, charter and franchises. Now this writ has almost
become obsolete and was abolished by the crown proceedings act, 1947.
Ne exeat regno literal meaning of this latin maxim is that “let him not leave the kingdom”. This writ is issued by the king to restrain a person from leaving the
kingdom. Lord Eldon in case of Tomlinson v Harrison (1802) 8 Ves. 32 at 33 called it a ‘high prerogative writ’ which was applied on the cases of private rights always
with great caution and jealousy. Nowadays this writ is issued only under the provisions of section 6 of the debtors act, 1869.

In history there were only four prerogative writs of habeas corpus was not be treated separately. So, before going into the details of each writ there were certain
characteristics of the writs as follows:-

1. Those writs were not writ of course

2. Court has discretion in giving award of the writs.
 3. These writs were awarded prominently out of the court of the king’s bench.
4. In common law these prerogative writs would go to exempt jurisdictions, to which the king’s writ normally does not lie.

Certiorari was a royal demand for information by the king demand necessary information that is to be provided to him. As the king wishes to be more informed of
allegations or extortion made by his subjects. It is one of the king’s own writs which was used by him for general governmental purposes.

From the late 14th century till the end of the 17th century following purposes were being served by the writ of certiorari-

1. Supervised the proceedings of inferior courts of specialised jurisdiction.

2. Writ is issued for obtaining the information for any administrative purpose
3. To bring before the court of common-law, judicial records and any other formal documents. Judgments of inferior courts were obtained through this writ
4. Writ was also issued for removing the indictments of particular interest.

After 1660’s writ of certiorari acquired a new importance by creating new administrative duties on justices and ad hoc authorities.

In the Leading case of Groenevelt v burwell(1700) 1 Ld. Raym. 454 at 459 it was held that the writ of certiorari would lie to review disciplinary decisions by censors of
college and C.J. Holt said that all the proceedings can be returned by writ of certiorari and same to be examined before the supreme court or higher court.

Prohibition is one of the oldest writs whose primary function was to limit the jurisdiction of inferior courts. Later under common law courts it was used as a weapon in
their conflicts of court of chancery(court of equity) and admiralty(maritime courts). Disobedience of writ of prohibition was conceived as contempt of crown.

Case- Worthington v. Jeffries, 1875, L. R. 10 C. P. 387

This was a modern case on prerogative writs and in that case it was said that grounds for grant of prohibition is not that the individual applying for the same has suffered
the damage or not but whether the royal power infringe upon by reason of the prescribed order of the administration of justice having been disobeyed. That implies that a
complete stranger could also have the writ.

Writ of Mandamus that appeared in earlier law books was not concerned about private grievances at all. Till 1578 there was no case found that was reported, and serving a
purpose similar to the modern writ. History of mandamus begam with Bagg’s case (1615) 11 Co.Rep. 93b it was held in this case Bagg, a capital burges of plymouth, was
unjustly removed from his office by the head of the town (Mayor) and commonalty, and they were ordered by the court to restore his remove until they showed the court a
good reason for their conduct. Both of them failed to satisfy the court for their conduct and therefore, writ of mandamus was issued to restore Bagg.

In Montagu’s words, prerogative writs were the one which concerns about the king’s justice to be administered to his subjects and the king must have an account of all his
subjects those were imprisoned. Habeas corpus was considered as the most beneficent remedy it value was enhanced during the 17th century as during that time struggle
for the constitution was going on. Writ of habeas corpus provide a beneficial remedy.

In 1759 all four writs were collectively designated as prerogative writs for the first time on record.

Before manfield no one has tried to classify writs as a group but the relationship between the writs exists at least a century before.

Writ Jurisdiction

In India only the Supreme and High Courts have writ jurisdiction and judicial review of all the government activities by these courts are known as writ jurisdiction. Writ
jurisdiction is exercised to control the vast discretionary power of administrative authorities as those powers become subjects in the absence of guidelines for exercising
those powers. To ensure that “rule of law” exists in all the government action, there arises a need to control the discretionary powers of administrative authorities. Judicial
review of administrative actions is important to ensure that all the actions taken by the administrative authorities are legal, rational, fair, just and as per the provisions of
law.

Article 32 and 226 of Indian Constitution provides power to Supreme Court and High Court simultaneously of judicial review of administrative actions and also designed for
the enforcement of fundamental rights, in the form of writs.
Image source- RVCJ Media

High Court (Article 226)

Article 226 of Indian Constitution empowers The State High Courts to issue a direction, order or writ for enforcement of fundamental rights, or for reviewing administrative
actions. This power can be used by the High Court not only for enforcement of fundamental right but also lie for non- fundamental rights. The power conferred to every High
Court under Article 226 to issue writ shall not be in derogation to the power conferred under clause (2) of article 32 on the Supreme Court.

Case- Sarvepali Ramaiah & others v The District Collector

In this recent case of March 2019, Supreme Court has tried to define the scope of Article 226 of the Indian Constitution.

It was held that-

1. Administrative actions are subject to judicial review under Article 226 on the ground of illegality, rationality, want of power or irregularity in the procedure.
2. The decision of the administrative authorities may also be quashed on the of illegality or there is an error of law on the face of the decision by the High Court under
Article 226.
3. Judicial review under Article 226 of Indian Constitution, 1950 not only directed against any order or decision but also directed against a decision making process.
4. A further appeal does not lie before the court exercising the power under article 226 neither does it passionately adjudicate disputed question of facts.
5. The remedy under Article 226 of Indian Constitution,1950 is available only when there is a violation of some statutory duty on the part of the statutory authority.
6. While exercising its power under Article 226 High Court can only either annul the order/decision or quash the same whereas, under Article 227 High Court apart
from annulling the proceedings, can also substitute the impugned decision by the decision which the inferior court should have passed.
7. Exercise of Article 227 Of Indian Constitution,1950 is restricted to only those cases where there is a grave failure in fulfilling the duty and there was immoral abuse of
fundamental principles of law.
8. In the case of purely contractual rights writs under Article 226 can’t be invoked.
9. While exercising its power under Article 226 High Court can’t proceed adjudication upon affidavit or on questions of facts.
10. Lastly its is said that power of Judicial Review Conferred upon High Court under Article 226 is a basic essential feature of Indian Constitution and legislature
including Armed Forces Act,2007 also can’t overrides the jurisdiction of the High Court under this section.

Image source – http://bit.ly/33dXwnl

Supreme Court (Article 32)

Under Article 32 of Indian constitution, 1950 any person can move to the Supreme Court of India for enforcement of his Fundamental Rights conferred under part III of the
Indian Constitution.

Article 32 empowers Supreme court to issue a direction, order or writ of any of its five types for enforcement of fundamental right.

Writ can also be issued on any application if such application include violation of social welfare laws. As it was held in Bandua mukti morcha case by the Supreme Court.

Though supreme court jurisdiction to issue a writ under Article 32 is less wider than that of High Court conferred under Article 226 because Supreme court can only issue
writ for protection of fundamental rights of the person seeking protection whereas, High Court can also issue writ for protection of any legal right but for that High Court has
Discretionary power.

Writ Jurisdiction of High Court

Public Law Remedy of Immense Scope

The power conferred under article 226 of the constitution empowers the High Courts to issue to any person or authority any order or writs in form of habeas corpus,
certiorari, mandamus, prohibition and quo warranto for enforcement of rights conferred under part III of Indian Constitution and also for enforcement of any other legal
right. These five writs in English Law are known as Prerogative Writs, as they are originated from the king’s prerogative power of superintendence over his subjects.This
power can also be exercised against the legislature in appropriate cases.

In India before the commencement of the constitution, only three chartered were competent to issue the writs were High Court of Bombay, Calcutta and Madras and that too
within some specified limits and the other high courts could not exercise this power at all. But now all the high court has the same power to grant the remedy via issuing
prerogative writs.

Language used in article 226 and in article 32 is very broad and does even provides for any rigid procedure. The power not only extent to issuing of writs but also extends to
issuing of direction, orders and writ also. The scope of prerogative writs is wider in India than England.

Case- Bandhua mukti Morcha v Union of India

In this case, petitioner was an organisation addressed the issue by a letter stating that there are bonded labour practices being followed in the country before justice
Bhagwati. Treating the letter as a writ petition and appointed a commission for making an enquiry into the allegations made. After the enquiry commission pointed out
certain points in its report such as-

1. Dusty atmosphere, very difficult to breathe in it.

2. Forced labour, workmen were not allowed to leave work
3. No pure drinking water is provided to workmen therefore, they are forced to drink dirty water.
4. No proper shelters were provided to workers
5. Many of them were suffering from chronic disease
6. Whenever any labour got injured during work no compensation is paid to him
7. No medical facilities for workers and their families neither there were any schooling facilities for children of workers.

These were the certain points highlighted by the commission in its report of inquiry. Whereas, respondent took the defence that article 32 can’t be applied in this case as
there was no violation of fundamental rights of referred petitioner neither the letter which was addressed to the court be treated as a writ petition. In the proceedings of
article 32 court does not have power to appoint commission and many other contentions which were raised by the respondent.

Court rejected all the contentions of respondent and held that if any citizen of the country brings an application on behalf of the large number of people subjected to any
cause the same complaint or application can be treated as a writ petition. Moreover, it was held that when the petition contain such crucial points then it can’t be rejected on
the ground that it is not violative of fundamental right of workmen.

Interpretation of Article 21 given in Mullen’s case state that every individual of this country has the right to live with dignity and free from exploitation. And this article has
its roots in Directive Principles of State Policies Article 39 clause (e) and (f) and article 41 and article 42. According to these articles, state is obligated to ensure that there is
no violation of fundamental rights of any person, especially when it comes to weaker section of the society.

It was also held that jurisdiction under Article 226 exercised by High Courts is also a new constitutional jurisdiction and conferred in similarly wide manner as the
jurisdiction under article 32 over Supreme Court is conferred.in facts jurisdiction of the High Court is much wider under article 226 as high court are required to exercise
jurisdiction for enforcement of fundamental as well as legal rights. Also for the protection of any right created by statute conferred on poor and disadvantaged people of
contrary that require protection vigorously as fundamental rights.

In case of Babubhai Jamnadas Patel v State of Gujarat it was held that the High Court cannot order police investigation merely on the basis of suspicion but in combination
with article 227, High Court can order for an investigation to be done for its smooth working and for getting a conclusion on time without any delay.

Territorial Extent of Writ Jurisdiction

Clause (1) of article 226 provides a two folded territorial limitation on the power of a High Court to issue writs.

1. Writs issued by the high court must lie in its territorial limits i.e a High Court of Andhra Pradesh can’t issue a writ for protection of a right of person permanent
resident. And the power to issue writ by the High Court must be exercised throughout the territory to which it exercise jurisdiction.
2. Writ can only be issued by High Court against the authority or person within the territorial limits of the High Court i.e. High Court of Punjab and Haryana can’t issue
a writ against the chief minister of Uttar Pradesh.

These two contentions on territorial limits of High Court makes it clear that the jurisdiction to issue a writ can either be decided by residence or location within those
territories.

Case- Election Commission v Saka Venkata Subba Rao

In this case respondent filed an application to issue a writ under Article 226 before the Madras High Court for restraining the election commission from inquiring into his
alleged disqualification for membership of the assembly. Permanent office of election commission is situated in New Delhi.

It was held by the Supreme Court on appeal before it that High Court of Madras has no power to issue Writ against Election Commision as its permanent office is located in
New Delhi. It was observed by the court that mere functioning of a tribunal or authority, having permanent office located elsewhere is not sufficient to create High Court
jurisdiction under Article 226 to issue writ. Neither the cause of action arose in jurisdiction limits will be enough to create jurisdiction on High Court regarding the matter to
issue writ under Article 226.

Whereas, after the 15th amendment of Indian Constitution in 1963 it was permitted that cause of action can become a ground for arising jurisdiction to issue writ under
Article 226 by the high court in whose jurisdiction cause of action has partly or completely has taken place or arises. Mere declaration on the ground that issue may be more
effectively dealt by other High Court can’t be justified.

Discretionary Remedy

Power conferred under article 226 confer discretion on High Court. High court will only exercise jurisdiction in accordance with judicial considerations and well established
principle of laws. Exercise of jurisdiction on any irrelevant consideration will make such an order or writ invalid.

Case: Union of India v W.N. Chadha

In this case of 1993 High Court had earlier quashed the FIR even though the said F.I.R discloses the offence committed by the accused, on the assumption that it has the
power to quash the F.I.R under Article 226.whereas, it was contended by the Additional Solicitor General that the F.I.R cannot be quashed if the allegations made in it do
make a prima facie case. Therefore it was held that high court has the power to quash a F.I.R only in cases where the F.I.R prima facie does not disclose any offence being
committed and also there are certain other points mentioned in Bhajan lal case.

While exercising its discretionary power High court can pass an order in public interest and in terms of equity and the court can also refuse to provide remedy if it was
found that petitioner seeks to invoke jurisdiction with wrongful or fraudulent intention for any unjust gain or for securing any dishonest perpetrator.

Discretionary Remedy provided under this article is for doing justice and correcting injustice and not for any other purpose.while exercise its discretionary power High
Court must follow the well recognised principle of law.

In case of public interest Litigation court can even go beyond the case and can also grant remedies beyond what is prayed by the parties.as in the case of Padma v Hiralal
Motilal Desarda writ petition appearing to the one in public interest, challenging the procedure adopted by the respondent for disposal of the land. High Court has extended
its jurisdiction under Article 226 via order of enquiry on certain questions of facts by scrutinizing governmental files and coming to a conclusion that there is a huge
irregularity in the matter of allotment of land and found that the policy formed was erroneous and cause injustice to public interest.

Supervisory Power

Power conferred under Article 226 is supervisory in nature as the High Court does not act as a court of appeal while exercising its power under Article 226. The only work of
the High Court is to examine whether the challenged action is lawful or not. In respect of lawfulness also law is more clear on the point of actions affecting and exceeding the
jurisdiction and clear on supervisory power of High Court under Article 226. While exercising its supervisory power court can’t go into the merits of the controversy as an
appellate court can.

In case of TISCO Ltd. v Union of India, 1996

In the given case it was held by the Supreme Court that while exercising the power under this Article court can not interfere in the policy decisions of the government unless
their decisions or clearly opposing the constitutional laws.

Principles for Exercise of Jurisdiction

There are eight principles which regulate the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226:-

Alternative remedy

As we have discussed above that Article 226 provides for a discretionary remedy and high court has the power to refuse the grant of any writ if its is satisfied that the
aggrieved party have adequate alternative remedy. Remedies provided under this article can’t be used as a substitute for other remedies. So, therefore it can be said that a
writ under Article 226 can’t be issued by the High Court in the case where there exists an equal, efficient and adequate alternative remedy unless there is any exceptional
reason for dealing the matter under Article 226.

Where there is a right to appeal available before the person seeking writ jurisdiction then in such cases High Court can refuse to exercise its writ jurisdiction the ground of
availability of efficient alternative remedy

In several cases different High Courts refused to issue writ where the person seeking for writ has remedy available, like in the case of Firm Hari pd v STO AIR 1959 All 246
Allahabad High Court has refused to issue a writ where the aggrieved assessee had a remedy against assessment made by sales tax officer by way of appeal to the appellate
authority.

Moreover in case, where an alternate remedy which is available before the applicant is not adequate then, the High Court can’t refuse to issue writ because it is clear from
the various judgments of Supreme court that High Court can only exercise its discretionary jurisdiction and refuse to exercise its writ jurisdiction only when there is
availability of equal, adequate and efficient alternative remedy.

Case- Purshottam Chandra v State of U.P.