Prohibition in the High Court of Kerala: Stopping a Court or Tribunal from Exceeding Jurisdiction

Prohibition under Articles 226 and 227 before the High Court of Kerala is the writ that forbids an inferior court, tribunal or quasi-judicial authority from continuing to proceed where it lacks jurisdiction, exceeds it, or proposes to violate natural justice. Where certiorari quashes an order already passed, prohibition stops the next step. This guide covers when prohibition lies in Kerala — before the DRT, DM/CMM under SARFAESI Sec 14, revenue tribunals, and labour fora — and when it will be refused as a disguised appeal.

What prohibition does — the preventive sister of certiorari

The Supreme Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, (1955) 1 SCR 1104 at para 15 treated prohibition and certiorari as no fundamental distinction, but successive stages:

Prohibition is issued to prohibit an authority proceeding without jurisdiction; certiorari is issued to quash an order passed without jurisdiction. Where the proceedings are still pending, prohibition; where the order is already made, certiorari — and the court will mould a prohibition prayer into certiorari where the order intervenes.

Four conditions must coincide:

1. An inferior court, tribunal or quasi-judicial authority — not a purely administrative body — is seized of or about to be seized of the matter, and its function requires hearing and determination of rights after opportunity.
2. Want or excess of jurisdiction is apparent — from subject-matter, preliminary fact, or statutory bar (e.g., Sec 34 SARFAESI ousts civil court, Sec 509 + Rule 8(3) vests the Tribunal for LSGIs).
3. The error is not merely on merits — a wrong appreciation of evidence is not want of jurisdiction.
4. Alternative remedy does not cure a patent jurisdictional defect where the tribunal proposes to act wholly without authority — but where the alternative can test jurisdiction itself (e.g., Sec 17 DRT), the High Court will ask why that forum was not first approached.

Where prohibition is invoked in Kerala

A common misfire: seeking prohibition against an administrative tender committee before hearing — the committee is not at that stage a quasi-judicial adjudicator; the correct writ is mandamus to conduct the hearing or certiorari after the blacklisting order on natural-justice failure.

Prohibition vs Article 227 — the correct label in Kerala

After Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, (2015) 5 SCC 423, civil court judicial orders are amenable to Article 227 superintendence, not Article 226 prohibition/certiorari. For tribunals and statutory authorities (DRT, KAT, Co-operative Tribunal, Revenue Tribunal), Article 226 prohibition/certiorari remains.

Where a civil court is about to proceed wholly without jurisdiction (e.g., civil suit filed despite Sec 34 SARFAESI bar or Sec 509 Municipality bar after the condonable window), the High Court exercises Article 227 to keep the court within bounds — not Article 226 — and no Letters Patent Appeal lies against a pure 227 order (226 original vs 227 supervisory distinction per Umaji Keshao Meshram v. Radhikabai, (1986) Supp SCC 401; civil courts to Art 227 per Radhey Shyam, paras 24–25).

Practical filing in Kerala: invoke both Articles 226 and 227 where the respondent is a tribunal, so the Single Judge can classify; where the respondent is a civil court, invoke Article 227 only.

What the court examines — and what defeats prohibition

The High Court examines ** jurisdiction, not merits** — is there a tribunal, is it properly constituted, does the statute confer subject-matter, and are preliminary proceedings present — and natural justice where no procedure is prescribed. It will not re-appreciate evidence or correct a mere wrong decision that is within jurisdiction.

Prohibition is discretionary, not of right. It will be refused where:

• the petitioner submitted to jurisdiction without objection and now seeks prohibition after participating;
• laches and delay — moving only after the tribunal’s elaborate hearing has concluded and the order is imminent where certiorari after is equally efficacious;
• the alternative remedy (e.g., Sec 17 DRT) can itself test the jurisdictional question and the defect is not patent;
• no failure of justice is shown on the record.

Where the order has already been passed by the time the High Court hears the petition, the court will mould the prohibition prayer into certiorari and quash, rather than dismiss as infructuous.

What documents move a prohibition petition

Bring: the notice/proceedings sheet showing the tribunal’s proposed jurisdiction (cause title, subject-matter, relief sought), the statutory bar extract (Sec 34 SARFAESI, Sec 509/Rule 8(3), Sec 69 Co-op), the preliminary-proceeding proof (absence of Sec 13(2)/13(3A) before Sec 13(4), or absence of LLMC report before DLAC), and the objection on jurisdiction already filed before the tribunal with date — showing you did not acquiesce.

Primary sources

• Constitution — Articles 226, 227
• Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, (1955) 1 SCR 1104, esp. para 15 (prohibition vs certiorari)
• Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, (2003) 6 SCC 675 — 226 vs 227 distinction; Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, (2015) 5 SCC 423 — civil courts to 227
• Umaji Keshao Meshram v. Radhikabai, (1986) Supp SCC 401 — 226 original vs 227 supervisory
• SARFAESI Act Secs 13, 14, 34; Balkrishna Rama Tarle v. Phoenix ARC, (2023) 1 SCC 662
• Kerala Municipality Act Sec 509; Tribunal Rules 1999 Rule 8(3); Kerala Panchayat Raj Act Sec 276