--- title: "Writ of Certiorari in Kerala High Court Under Article 226" description: "Tribunal, DRT or tax order without jurisdiction or natural justice? When certiorari under Article 226 lies in Kerala: Hari Vishnu Kamath tests, 226 vs 227." url: "https://advaslam.com/writing/writ-certiorari-kerala-high-court/" image: "https://advaslam.com/og/writing/writ-certiorari-kerala-high-court.png" --- [High Court writs & procedure](https://advaslam.com/practice/high-court-litigation/) # Certiorari in the High Court of Kerala: How to Quash an Illegal Order of a Tribunal or Authority By [**Adv. K J Muhammed Aslam**](https://advaslam.com/profile/) · Advocate, Ernakulam (Bar Council of Kerala) Published 8 September 2026 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](https://indiacode.gov.in/document-grid/d5475e8d-1998-4ac8-8694-82f941074bb7) - *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 FAQ ## Common questions **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. **A note on this article.** It is general legal information, not legal advice. The law may have changed since the date shown; before acting on anything here, take advice on your specific situation from an advocate of your choice. ## Related guides - [Service & Labour Orders in Kerala — KAT, CAT & Writ Route](https://advaslam.com/guides/service-labour-orders-kat-cat-writ-route/) - [Writ Petitions before the Kerala High Court — Types & Grounds](https://advaslam.com/guides/writ-petitions-kerala-high-court-types-grounds/) [All procedure guides →](https://advaslam.com/guides/) Keep reading Criminal law: bail, quash & appeals ### Regular Bail in Kerala: Section 480 BNSS Process Explained Regular bail under Sections 478 and 480 BNSS in Kerala: forums, paperbook, default-bail clocks, undertrial release, conditions and sureties explained. 30 Sept 2026 [Regular Bail in Kerala: Section 480 BNSS Process Explained](https://advaslam.com/writing/regular-bail-kerala-480-bnss/) Criminal law: bail, quash & appeals ### Anticipatory Bail in Kerala High Court: Process, Fees and Time Anticipatory bail under Sec 482 BNSS in Kerala: Sessions vs High Court route, paperbook, conditions, SC/ST bar, timelines and what follows rejection. 28 Sept 2026 [Anticipatory Bail in Kerala High Court: Process, Fees and Time](https://advaslam.com/writing/anticipatory-bail-kerala-high-court-process-fees/) Contact [WhatsApp](https://wa.me/919497240215?text=Hello%2C%20I%20found%20advaslam.com%20and%20would%20like%20to%20discuss%20a%20matter.) [contact@advaslam.com](mailto:contact@advaslam.com) [+91 94972 40215](tel:+919497240215) 3rd Floor, Lalan Towers (KGL Builders), Vanchi Square, High Court Junction, Ernakulam, Kerala 682031 · Monday – Saturday, 10:00 – 18:30 (by appointment) ```json {"@context":"https://schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https://advaslam.com/#website","url":"https://advaslam.com","name":"Adv. K J Muhammed Aslam","alternateName":"advaslam.com","publisher":{"@id":"https://advaslam.com/#person"},"inLanguage":"en-IN"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https://advaslam.com/#person","name":"K J Muhammed Aslam","alternateName":["Adv. K J Muhammed Aslam","Advocate K J Muhammed Aslam","Muhammed Aslam K J","Adv. Aslam"],"honorificPrefix":"Adv.","jobTitle":"Advocate","description":"Advocate enrolled with the Bar Council of Kerala, practising from High Court Junction, Ernakulam: cyber and technology law, data protection (DPDP), business, banking and IPR, and litigation before the High Court of Kerala and the courts at Ernakulam.","url":"https://advaslam.com/profile/","image":"https://advaslam.com/og.png","telephone":"+919497240215","email":"contact@advaslam.com","address":{"@type":"PostalAddress","streetAddress":"3rd Floor, Lalan Towers (KGL Builders), Vanchi Square, High Court Junction","addressLocality":"Ernakulam","addressRegion":"Kerala","postalCode":"682031","addressCountry":"IN"},"alumniOf":{"@type":"CollegeOrUniversity","name":"Bharata Mata School of Legal Studies"},"memberOf":[{"@type":"Organization","name":"Bar Council of Kerala","url":"https://barcouncilkerala.org/lawyer-registry-list"},{"@type":"Organization","name":"Kerala High Court Advocates' Association","url":"https://khcaa.com/"}],"identifier":[{"@type":"PropertyValue","propertyID":"Bar Council of Kerala Enrolment No.","value":"K/001823/2026"},{"@type":"PropertyValue","propertyID":"KHCAA Membership No.","value":"OAJ 358"}],"knowsAbout":["Information Technology Act 2000","Cyber crime law","Technology law and technology contracts","Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023","DPDP compliance","Data protection and privacy law","Business and commercial law","Contract drafting and negotiation","Banking and finance law","Negotiable Instruments Act cheque dishonour","SARFAESI Act","Intellectual property law","Copyright and trademark law","Patent infringement","GST and income-tax law","Blockchain and cryptocurrency technology","Web3 wallets and NFTs","Drone regulation and DigitalSky framework","Writ petitions under Article 226","Criminal law","Civil and consumer litigation","Family and succession law","Service and labour law","Legal drafting","Mediation and dispute resolution"],"knowsLanguage":["en","ml"],"workLocation":{"@id":"https://advaslam.com/#practice"},"hasCredential":[{"@type":"EducationalOccupationalCredential","credentialCategory":"Enrolment as an advocate","identifier":"K/001823/2026","recognizedBy":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Bar Council of Kerala"},"description":"Enrolled as an advocate with the Bar Council of Kerala (K/001823/2026), 2026"},{"@type":"EducationalOccupationalCredential","credentialCategory":"degree","educationalLevel":"Bachelor","recognizedBy":{"@type":"CollegeOrUniversity","name":"Bharata Mata School of Legal Studies"},"description":"BBA LLB (Hons.), Bharata Mata School of Legal Studies (2025)"},{"@type":"EducationalOccupationalCredential","credentialCategory":"Remote Pilot Certificate","recognizedBy":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Directorate General of Civil Aviation, India"},"description":"DGCA Remote Pilot Certificate, issued 2022"}],"subjectOf":[{"@type":"CreativeWork","name":"Govind Babu v. State of Kerala (Crl.M.C. No. 5640 of 2026, 2026:KER:69496)","url":"https://indiankanoon.org/doc/151180872/","datePublished":"2026-09-10","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"High Court of Kerala"}},{"@type":"CreativeWork","name":"Viji Sagar v. State of Kerala (Crl.M.C. No. 1603 of 2026, 2026:KER:20803)","url":"https://indiankanoon.org/doc/193042273/","datePublished":"2026-03-09","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"High Court of Kerala"}},{"@type":"CreativeWork","name":"Anjana v. Manoharan A.P. (C.R.P. No. 442 of 2025, 2026:KER:10054)","url":"https://indiankanoon.org/doc/68585852/","datePublished":"2026-02-05","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"High Court of Kerala"}}],"sameAs":["https://www.linkedin.com/in/azlubro","https://portal.khcaa.com/advocate?id=10480","https://lexosys.com"]},{"@type":"LegalService","@id":"https://advaslam.com/#practice","name":"Adv. K J Muhammed Aslam — Advocate, Ernakulam","url":"https://advaslam.com","image":"https://advaslam.com/og.png","telephone":"+919497240215","email":"contact@advaslam.com","address":{"@type":"PostalAddress","streetAddress":"3rd Floor, Lalan Towers (KGL Builders), Vanchi Square, High Court Junction","addressLocality":"Ernakulam","addressRegion":"Kerala","postalCode":"682031","addressCountry":"IN"},"geo":{"@type":"GeoCoordinates","latitude":9.9889,"longitude":76.2748},"hasMap":"https://www.google.com/maps/search/?api=1&query=Lalan+Towers+High+Court+Junction+Ernakulam","areaServed":[{"@type":"City","name":"Ernakulam"},{"@type":"City","name":"Kochi"},{"@type":"State","name":"Kerala"},{"@type":"Country","name":"India"}],"openingHoursSpecification":{"@type":"OpeningHoursSpecification","dayOfWeek":["Monday","Tuesday","Wednesday","Thursday","Friday","Saturday"],"opens":"10:00","closes":"18:30"},"founder":{"@id":"https://advaslam.com/#person"},"knowsAbout":["Cyber crime and IT Act matters","Data protection and DPDP Act compliance","Business, banking, intellectual property and tax","Legal drafting","Criminal law: bail, quash and appeals","Writ petitions before the High Court of Kerala","Civil, property and consumer matters","Family and succession matters","Service and labour matters"]},{"@type":"BlogPosting","@id":"https://advaslam.com/writing/writ-certiorari-kerala-high-court/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https://advaslam.com/#website"},"headline":"Certiorari in the High Court of Kerala: How to Quash an Illegal Order of a Tribunal or Authority","description":"Tribunal, DRT or tax order without jurisdiction or natural justice? When certiorari under Article 226 lies in Kerala: Hari Vishnu Kamath tests, 226 vs 227.","url":"https://advaslam.com/writing/writ-certiorari-kerala-high-court/","mainEntityOfPage":"https://advaslam.com/writing/writ-certiorari-kerala-high-court/","datePublished":"2026-09-08T00:00:00.000Z","dateModified":"2026-09-08T00:00:00.000Z","keywords":"writ certiorari Kerala High Court, Article 226 certiorari error apparent, Hari Vishnu Kamath certiorari test, certiorari vs appeal tribunal, quash tribunal order certiorari","inLanguage":"en-IN","author":{"@id":"https://advaslam.com/#person"},"publisher":{"@id":"https://advaslam.com/#person"},"image":"https://advaslam.com/og/writing/writ-certiorari-kerala-high-court.png","about":{"@type":"Service","@id":"https://advaslam.com/practice/high-court-litigation/#service","name":"High Court writs & procedure","url":"https://advaslam.com/practice/high-court-litigation/","provider":{"@id":"https://advaslam.com/#practice"}}},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https://advaslam.com/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Articles","item":"https://advaslam.com/writing/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Certiorari in the High Court of Kerala: How to Quash an Illegal Order of a Tribunal or Authority","item":"https://advaslam.com/writing/writ-certiorari-kerala-high-court/"}]},{"@type":"FAQPage","mainEntity":[{"@type":"Question","name":"When does certiorari lie under Article 226?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"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."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"What are the four Hari Vishnu Kamath tests for certiorari?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"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."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"Is certiorari available against a civil court order?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"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."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"What is 'error apparent on the face of the record'?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"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)."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"Can the High Court substitute its own findings in certiorari?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"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."}}]}]} ```