When does certiorari lie under Article 226?

Where an inferior court, tribunal or quasi-judicial authority acted without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction, or in violation of principles of natural justice, or where the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings — e.g., clear disregard of the governing Act or Rules. The writ examines legality, not merits; it quashes, it does not rehear evidence.

What are the four Hari Vishnu Kamath tests for certiorari?

From Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque (1955) 1 SCR 1104 (7-judge Bench), as summarised in Custodian of Evacuee Property v. Khan Saheb Abdul Shukoor (1961) 3 SCR 855 and restated in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai (2003) 6 SCC 675: (1) correcting errors of jurisdiction; (2) where the court acts illegally in exercise of undoubted jurisdiction (e.g., denial of hearing, natural justice); (3) the High Court acts in supervisory, not appellate jurisdiction and will not re-appreciate facts; (4) a manifest error apparent on the face of the record, based on clear ignorance or disregard of law, not a mere wrong decision.

Is certiorari available against a civil court order?

After Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath (2015) 5 SCC 423 (3-judge Bench) correcting Surya Dev Rai on this point, judicial orders of civil courts are amenable to Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction, not Article 226 certiorari. Orders of tribunals and authorities (DRT, KAT, Co-operative Tribunal, Revenue Tribunal, Tax Tribunal) remain amenable to Article 226 certiorari where the Hari Vishnu Kamath tests are met. File under both Articles 226 and 227 where appropriate and let maintainability follow jurisdiction classification.

What is 'error apparent on the face of the record'?

An error that is self-evident on the record without needing lengthy, contested reasoning on points where two views are possible — e.g., the tribunal applied a repealed provision, ignored a mandatory statutory provision, or recorded patent contradictoriness. An error that needs elaborate argument or re-appreciation of evidence is not patent (Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun, (1960) 1 SCR 890).

Can the High Court substitute its own findings in certiorari?

No. The High Court quashes and may remit. It does not substitute its own findings for those of the tribunal. Under Article 227, however, the High Court may both quash and issue further directions as the facts warrant — the distinction Hari Vishnu Kamath drew between annulment under 226 and broader directions under 227.

Writ of Certiorari in Kerala High Court Under Article 226

Certiorari under Article 226 before the High Court of Kerala is the writ that calls for the record and quashes an order of an inferior court, tribunal or quasi-judicial authority where the order was made without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction, in violation of natural justice, or with a manifest error apparent on the face of the record. This guide sets out the Hari Vishnu Kamath four propositions that still govern the writ, how the High Court distinguishes Article 226 (original) from Article 227 (supervisory), and why certiorari is not an appeal in disguise.

What certiorari examines — and what it does not

The 7-judge Bench in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, (1955) 1 SCR 1104, summarised by the Constitution Bench in Custodian of Evacuee Property, Bangalore v. Khan Saheb Abdul Shukoor, (1961) 3 SCR 855 and restated in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, (2003) 6 SCC 675, governs:

Proposition	Certiorari lies where
1. Errors of jurisdiction	The tribunal acted without jurisdiction or in excess of it, or failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in it — want may arise from subject-matter, absence of preliminary proceedings, or illegal constitution
2. Illegality in exercise of undoubted jurisdiction	The tribunal violated principles of natural justice or acted in flagrant disregard of procedure — e.g., decides without hearing, refuses to hear a party, or ignores mandatory statutory mode
3. Supervisory, not appellate	The High Court will not review findings of fact even if erroneous; a court with jurisdiction to decide rightly also has jurisdiction to decide wrongly, and certiorari is not an appeal where the statute provides none
4. Manifest error apparent on the face of the proceedings	The decision itself discloses a patent legal error — e.g., based on clear ignorance or disregard of the governing Act/Rules — but not a mere wrong decision that needs elaborate reasoning to establish

The record the High Court examines is the record before the tribunal. For a tribunal’s speaking order, the reasons on the face of the order are the record; for other authorities, the T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa, (1955) 1 SCR 250 definition of patent error applies.

Who is amenable to certiorari in Kerala?

Any authority or body of persons constituted by law or having legal authority to adjudicate upon rights and enjoined to act judicially or quasi-judicially — tribunals and statutory authorities, not purely administrative acts:

Amenable: DRT/DRAT (SARFAESI/RDDBFI), Kerala Administrative Tribunal (confirm current constitution/status before filing), Co-operative Arbitration Court, Revenue Divisional Officer / Land Tribunal, GST / Income-tax appellate authorities, Consumer fora (as tribunals), Labour Court / Industrial Tribunal, University tribunals, Local Self Government Tribunal.
Not amenable by certiorari under 226: Civil courts’ judicial orders — after Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, (2015) 5 SCC 423 (3-judge Bench), civil court orders are amenable to Article 227 superintendence, not Article 226 certiorari; a petition labelling a civil court order as a 226 certiorari will be treated as 227.

The private-body test from Praga Tools and Andi Mukta still applies: a private person not entrusted with adjudicatory public power is not amenable.

Certiorari vs appeal vs revision vs Article 227

Remedy	Nature	What the High Court does
Appeal where statute provides one (e.g., Sec 18 SARFAESI DRAT, Sec 107 CGST, Sec 509 Municipality 30+30d)	Statutory rehearing on facts and law	Alternative remedy — writ declined unless CIT v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal (2013) 357 ITR 357 (SC) exception
Revision under CPC Sec 115 (amended 1999 w.e.f. 01.07.2002)	Narrowed to jurisdictional error in civil court orders	Where revision is barred, Art 227 (not 226 certiorari) is the residual supervisory remedy for civil courts
Certiorari under Art 226	Original jurisdiction — calls for record, examines legality	Quashes; does not substitute own findings; may remit; no appeal to Division Bench where 227 only
Supervisory under Art 227	Supervisory, not original — sparingly, to keep courts/tribunals within bounds	May quash and issue further directions; suo motu possible; no writ appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 against a pure 227 order (226 original vs 227 supervisory distinction per Umaji Keshao Meshram v. Radhikabai, (1986) Supp SCC 401; civil court orders to Art 227 per Radhey Shyam, paras 24–25)

Practical consequence for filing in Kerala: label the petition as under Articles 226 and 227 where the order is from a tribunal (Surya Dev Rai custom deprecated but still prevalent), so the court can classify. If the Single Judge decides mainly under 226, a writ appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 to the Division Bench lies; if purely under 227, it does not.

Where certiorari succeeds — and where it is refused

Succeeds where the record shows:

The DRT/authority acted without jurisdiction — e.g., SARFAESI Sec 13(4) measure on a non-secured asset, or a revenue officer passing a Paddy Land Act order without the LLMC → DLAC chain under Sec 9(8).
Violation of natural justice — no notice, no hearing, or hearing by a person other than the statutory authority; occupancy certificate refused where the statutory hearing under Rule 20(3) Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 2019 was not given.
Patent error — tribunal applied the repealed 1999 Building Rules where the 2019 Rules governed, or computed limitation from the wrong trigger date.

Refused where:

The error is merely wrong appreciation of evidence — two views possible on a factual finding is not patent.
Failure of justice not shown — certiorari is discretionary; the High Court may refuse even where a technical error exists if no prejudice is made out.
The petitioner suppressed material facts, approached with delay and laches, or seeks rehearing on facts that an appeal would have covered.

What documents move a certiorari petition

Bring: the impugned order with its reasoning, the record before the tribunal (pleadings, evidence, statutory notices with service proof), the Act/Rules extract the tribunal allegedly disregarded, and — for building/revenue writs — the IDO / Master Plan / LLMC report the order should have considered. Label exhibits to mirror the tribunal’s record so the patent error is self-evident.

Primary sources

Constitution — Articles 226, 227
Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, (1955) 1 SCR 1104 (7-judge Bench); Custodian of Evacuee Property, Bangalore v. Khan Saheb Abdul Shukoor, (1961) 3 SCR 855
T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa, (1955) 1 SCR 250; Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun, (1960) 1 SCR 890
Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, (2003) 6 SCC 675; Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, (2015) 5 SCC 423
Umaji Keshao Meshram v. Radhikabai, (1986) Supp SCC 401 — 226 (original) vs 227 (supervisory) distinction

Certiorari in the High Court of Kerala: How to Quash an Illegal Order of a Tribunal or Authority