---
title: "Prohibition Writ in Kerala High Court: Articles 226 and 227"
description: "Kerala tribunal or authority acting without jurisdiction? When prohibition under Articles 226 and 227 stops proceedings, and how it differs from certiorari."
url: "https://advaslam.com/writing/writ-prohibition-kerala-high-court/"
image: "https://advaslam.com/og/writing/writ-prohibition-kerala-high-court.png"
---

[High Court writs & procedure](https://advaslam.com/practice/high-court-litigation/)

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

By [**Adv. K J Muhammed Aslam**](https://advaslam.com/profile/) · Advocate, Ernakulam (Bar Council of Kerala)

Published 8 September 2026

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

| Tribunal / authority | Patent want-of-jurisdiction scenario where prohibition is sought | Why prohibition rather than later certiorari |
| --- | --- | --- |
| **DM / CMM under SARFAESI Sec 14** | Magistrate proposes to **adjudicate borrower vs bank title** or tenant rights, instead of the **ministerial verification** of Sec 14(1) proviso formalities within 30+30 days (*Balkrishna Rama Tarle (Dead) Thr. LRs v. Phoenix ARC (P) Ltd., (2023) 1 SCC 662*) | Adjudication would exceed Sec 14; prohibition to confine to verification |
| **DRT / DRAT** where civil court also seized | DRT proposes to decide a **civil title/boundary** dispute that is not a Sec 13(4) measure — Sec 34 bar read in reverse | Civil title needs civil court, not DRT — excess of jurisdiction |
| **Revenue Tribunal / RDO under Paddy Land Act Sec 9** | LLMC → DLAC chain not followed; RDO proposes to permit filling beyond 4.04 ares in a panchayat / 2.02 ares in a municipality (residential-building limits under the Paddy Land Act, 2008, as amended in 2018) | Preliminary proceeding absent — lack of jurisdiction |
| **Labour Court / Industrial Tribunal** | Tribunal proposes to proceed where reference under **Industrial Disputes Act Sec 10** is invalid, or where contract labour is no longer ID Act workman | Subject-matter bar |
| **Co-operative Arbitration Court** | Court proposes to decide where **Sec 69 Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969** bar is not met (money claim not between society and member) | Subject-matter bar |
| **Family Court / Magistrate under DV Act** | Magistrate proposes to pass **interim maintenance without jurisdiction** where the PWDV Act Sec 29 appeal is the prescribed correction and inherent powers cannot supplant it (*Titus v. State of Kerala*, 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 4611 (Ker HC, 01 Jul 2025)) | Hierarchy |

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](https://indiacode.gov.in/document-grid/d5475e8d-1998-4ac8-8694-82f941074bb7)
-   *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](https://indiacode.gov.in/handle/123456789/496260); *Balkrishna Rama Tarle v. Phoenix ARC*, (2023) 1 SCC 662
-   [Kerala Municipality Act Sec 509](https://lsgd.kerala.gov.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/kerala__municipality__act_1994.pdf); Tribunal Rules 1999 Rule 8(3); [Kerala Panchayat Raj Act Sec 276](https://indiacode.gov.in/handle/123456789/565097)

FAQ

## Common questions

**When does prohibition lie under Article 226?**

Where an inferior court, tribunal or quasi-judicial authority is proceeding or is about to proceed without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction, or in violation of the principles of natural justice where no other procedure is prescribed, and the illegality is apparent. Prohibition is preventive — it forbids continuance — unlike certiorari which quashes after the order.

**How is prohibition different from certiorari?**

Both correct jurisdictional error. Prohibition issues before or during the proceedings to forbid the tribunal from continuing; certiorari issues after the order to quash it. In practice the High Court may mould relief: where a tribunal has already passed the order by the time the petition is heard, a prohibition prayer is treated as certiorari, and vice versa. Hari Vishnu Kamath (1955) 1 SCR 1104 treats them as successive stages of the same supervisory power.

**Can prohibition issue against a pure administrative authority?**

Not as prohibition in the strict sense. The writ runs to bodies that adjudicate and are enjoined to act judicially or quasi-judicially — where rights are determined after hearing. Against a purely administrative or executive act that determines no lis (e.g., a tender eligibility scrutiny before hearing), mandamus or certiorari for violation of procedure is the correct writ, not prohibition.

**Do I need to wait for the tribunal's final order before moving the High Court?**

No — and that is the point of prohibition. Where the tribunal's want of jurisdiction is patent on the record (e.g., SARFAESI Sec 14 Magistrate treating the application as an adjudicatory trial, or a revenue tribunal entertaining a civil title suit), you may move before the error matures. Delay, however, defeats equity — prohibition is discretionary and laches matters.

**Is prohibition available against a civil court?**

Judicial orders of civil courts are amenable to Article 227 superintendence after Radhey Shyam (2015) 5 SCC 423. Where a civil court assumes jurisdiction it does not have (e.g., entertaining a matter barred by Sec 34 SARFAESI or Sec 509 Municipality Act after tribunal remedy lapsed), Article 227 — not Article 226 prohibition — is the supervisory route, commonly labelled under both Articles 226 and 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.

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-prohibition-kerala-high-court/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https://advaslam.com/#website"},"headline":"Prohibition in the High Court of Kerala: Stopping a Court or Tribunal from Exceeding Jurisdiction","description":"Kerala tribunal or authority acting without jurisdiction? When prohibition under Articles 226 and 227 stops proceedings, and how it differs from certiorari.","url":"https://advaslam.com/writing/writ-prohibition-kerala-high-court/","mainEntityOfPage":"https://advaslam.com/writing/writ-prohibition-kerala-high-court/","datePublished":"2026-09-08T00:00:00.000Z","dateModified":"2026-09-08T00:00:00.000Z","keywords":"writ prohibition Kerala High Court, Article 226 prohibition tribunal, prohibition vs certiorari Kerala, when prohibition lies excess jurisdiction","inLanguage":"en-IN","author":{"@id":"https://advaslam.com/#person"},"publisher":{"@id":"https://advaslam.com/#person"},"image":"https://advaslam.com/og/writing/writ-prohibition-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":"Prohibition in the High Court of Kerala: Stopping a Court or Tribunal from Exceeding Jurisdiction","item":"https://advaslam.com/writing/writ-prohibition-kerala-high-court/"}]},{"@type":"FAQPage","mainEntity":[{"@type":"Question","name":"When does prohibition lie under Article 226?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"Where an inferior court, tribunal or quasi-judicial authority is proceeding or is about to proceed without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction, or in violation of the principles of natural justice where no other procedure is prescribed, and the illegality is apparent. Prohibition is preventive — it forbids continuance — unlike certiorari which quashes after the order."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"How is prohibition different from certiorari?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"Both correct jurisdictional error. Prohibition issues before or during the proceedings to forbid the tribunal from continuing; certiorari issues after the order to quash it. In practice the High Court may mould relief: where a tribunal has already passed the order by the time the petition is heard, a prohibition prayer is treated as certiorari, and vice versa. Hari Vishnu Kamath (1955) 1 SCR 1104 treats them as successive stages of the same supervisory power."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"Can prohibition issue against a pure administrative authority?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"Not as prohibition in the strict sense. The writ runs to bodies that adjudicate and are enjoined to act judicially or quasi-judicially — where rights are determined after hearing. Against a purely administrative or executive act that determines no lis (e.g., a tender eligibility scrutiny before hearing), mandamus or certiorari for violation of procedure is the correct writ, not prohibition."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"Do I need to wait for the tribunal's final order before moving the High Court?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"No — and that is the point of prohibition. Where the tribunal's want of jurisdiction is patent on the record (e.g., SARFAESI Sec 14 Magistrate treating the application as an adjudicatory trial, or a revenue tribunal entertaining a civil title suit), you may move before the error matures. Delay, however, defeats equity — prohibition is discretionary and laches matters."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"Is prohibition available against a civil court?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"Judicial orders of civil courts are amenable to Article 227 superintendence after Radhey Shyam (2015) 5 SCC 423. Where a civil court assumes jurisdiction it does not have (e.g., entertaining a matter barred by Sec 34 SARFAESI or Sec 509 Municipality Act after tribunal remedy lapsed), Article 227 — not Article 226 prohibition — is the supervisory route, commonly labelled under both Articles 226 and 227."}}]}]}
```