WRIT OF CERTIORARI

General

 “Certiorari” is a latin word, means “to certify”.

 Certiorari was essentially a royal command.
 If Kind wishes to certified of some matter, ordered that
necessary information to be provided for him.
 According to Corpus Juris Secundum, “Certiorari” is a writ
issued from a superior court to an inferior court or tribunal
commanding the latter to send up the record of a particular
case.
 Ryot of Garabandho v Zamidar of Parlakimedi
[AIR 1943 PC 164]
 Nature and Scope of writ of certiorari and when it can be issued was set out,
by Lord Chancellor Viscount Simon.
 “The ancient writ of certiorari in England is an original writ which may be
issue out of a superior court requiring that the records of proceeding in some
matter pending before the inferior court shall be transmitted to the superior
court to be their dealt with. The writ is so named because, in original latin
form, it required that the King should ‘be certified’ of the proceedings to be
investigated, and object is to secure by the authority of a superior court, that
the jurisdiction of inferior tribunal should be properly exercised.”
 This was first leading decision on, writ of certiorari .
 Conditions

 In R. v Electricity Commissioners, ex p London Electricity Joint Committee co. Ltd. [(1924)1

KB 171 (CA)], Lord Atkin observed:
Whenever any body of persons 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 they are subject to
the controlling jurisdiction of the King's Bench Division exercised in these writs.
 From this observation it is clear that, writ of certiorari can be issued on fulfilment of
following conditions:
1. Judicial or quasi-judicial body must have legal authority.
2. Such authority must have power to determine questions affecting rights of subjects.
3. It must have duty to act judicially.
4. It must have acted in excess of such authority.
Grounds

 Writ of Certiorari can be issued on the following grounds:

1. Absence or excess of Jurisdiction

2. Jurisdictional Facts
3. Error of law apparent on the face of the record
4. Violation of Principle of Natural Justice
1. Absence or excess of Jurisdiction

 Absence of Jurisdiction
This refers to the situation where the authority has no jurisdiction at all to take
action. These Situation may arise:
1. If the authority is improperly constituted.
2. If the authority commits an error in its decision on jurisdictional facts and so
assumes jurisdiction which never belonged to it.
3. If the authority is incompetent to take action in respect of a locality, party or
subject-matter.
4. If the law which gives jurisdiction is itself unconstitutional.
 In Rafiq Khan v State of U.P. [AIR 1954 ALL 3], Sec. 85 of the
U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 gave power to the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate (S.D.M.) either to quash the entire order of the panchayat
adalat or to cancel its jurisdiction. The S.D.M. had no power to
modify the order in any manner. The Court issued the writ of
certiorari to quash the decision of the S.D.M. where he had
modified the conviction passed by the panchayat adalat by quashing
the conviction of accused for one offence and maintaining it in
respect of the other offence.
 In R. v. Minister of Transport [(1934) 1 KB 277], even though the
Minister was not empowered to revoke a licence, he passed an order
of revocation of licence. The order was quashed on the ground that
it was without juris- diction and, therefore, ultra vires.
 Excess of Jurisdiction
It refers to the cases where authority has jurisdiction but it exceeds its permitted line.

Newspapers Ltd. v. State Industrial Tribunal, AIR 1957 SC 532

Under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, an appropriate government is empowered to refer an
"industrial dispute" to a tribunal constituted under the Act. But if the government refers a
dispute to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication which is not an "industrial dispute" within
the meaning of the Act, the tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide such dispute.\
Ebrahim Aboobaker v. Tek Chand Dolwani, AIR 1953 SC 298
In the absence of any provision in the relevant stat ute, after a man is dead, his property cannot
be declared as an evacuee property. The decision of the authority would be without
jurisdiction.
2. Jurisdictional Facts

 Lack of jurisdiction may also arise from the absence of some preliminary facts,
which must exist before a tribunal exercises its jurisdiction. They are known as
"jurisdictional" or "collateral" facts.
 To put it simply, the existence of fact is necessary to the initiation of proceedings
and without which the act of the court is a nullity, can be said to be a
"jurisdictional fact“.
 If the jurisdictional fact does not exist, the court or the tribunal cannot act. If an
inferior court or a tribunal wrongly assumes the existence of such a fact, a writ of
certiorari can be issued.
 In State of M.P. v. D.K. Jadav [AIR 1968 SC 1186], under the relevant statute all jagirs,
including lands, forests, trees, tanks, wells, etc. were abolished and vested in the State.
However, all tanks, trees, private wells and buildings on "occupied land" were excluded
from the provisions of the statute. If they were on "unoccupied land" they stood vested in
the State. The Supreme Court held that the question whether the tanks, wells, etc. were on
"occupied" land or on "unoccupied" land was a jurisdictional fact.
 If the authority itself is given power to decide the preliminary fact and that authority
decides it wrongly, a writ of certiorari does not lie. The order can be corrected only in
appeal or revision, if it is provided under the relevant statute.
 But if the fact is not a "jurisdictional fact" but "adjudicatory fact"; i.e. the "fact in issue", it
can be determined by a court or tribunal and no certiorari lies against the finding arrived at
by the court on merits.
3. Error of Law Apparent on the fact of the
record.
 Error of law apparent on the record is an insult to the legal system which the courts cannot
overlook.
 An error is apparent on the face of the record if it can be ascertained merely by examining
the record without having to have recourse to other evidence.
 The concept 'error of law apparent on the face of the record' has to be determined judicially
on the facts of each case.
 It is comprised of many imponderables, it is not capable of precise definition, as no
objective criterion can be laid down, the apparent nature of the error being dependent upon
the subjective element [Shanmugam v S.R.V.S. AIR 1963 SC 1626].
 Satya Narayan v Malikarjun [AIR 1960 SC 137].
A general test to apply is that no error of law can be said to be apparent if it is not self-evident
or manifest; or if it requires an examination or arguments to establish it; or if it has to be
established by a long drawn out process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably
be two opinions.

 There is no patent error of law if of the two possible reasonable interpretations of law, the
tribunal adopts one. In such a situation that it has adopted one interpretation but not the
other interpretation favoring the individual [Collector of Customs v K. Ganga Setty AIR
1963 SC 1319]
 However, the court may interfere if only one interpretation of law is possible and the body
has not adopted the same, or if the construction adopted by it is perverse i.e. which no
reasonable person would adopt.
4. Violation of Principle of Natural Justice

 If an administrative agency violates rules of natural justice (bias, fair hearing,

etc.), the decision of the agency may be quashed by the court through the writ of
certiorari.
 In State of Punjab v K.R. Erry (AIR 1973 SC 834), the pension benefits of an
Assistant Engineer, P.W.D., were reduced on the basis of an adverse confidential
report without giving him a hearing. The court issued certiorari to quash the
decision on the ground of violation of the terpretations of law, the tribun:
principles of natural justice.
 In A.K. Kraipak v Union of India (AIR 1970 SC 150), the writ of certiorari was
issued to quash the action of a Selection Board, on the ground of personal bias.
Important Points about Writ of Certiorari

 It is a remedy operating in personam, therefore writ can be issued even where the
authority has become functus officio, to the keeper of the records.
 Writ can be issued against constitutional bodies (legislature, executive and
judiciary or their officers), statutory bodies like corporations, non-statutory
bodies like companies and cooperative societies and private bodies and persons.
 Certiorari can be issued to quash judicial, quasi-judicial as well as administrative
actions (A.K. Kraipak v Union of India AIR 1970 SC 150). The writ is
corrective in nature, thus its scope of operation is quite large.
 This writ does not issue to correct purely executive acts, but, on the other hand,
its application is not narrowly limited to inferior 'courts' in the strictest sense.
Broadly speaking, it may be said that if the act done by the inferior body is a
judicial act, as distinguished from being a ministerial act, certiorari will lie.
 The purpose of certiorari is not only negative (to quash an action) but it contains
affirmative or positive action also. In Gujarat Steel Tubes v Mazdoor Sabha
(AIR 1980 SC 1896), held that while quashing the dismissal order, the court can
also order reinstatement and the payment of back wages.