When can a Writ of Certiorari be Issued, in India?

Grounds on which writ of certiorari can be issued to a judicial or quasi-judicial body- A writ of certiorari cannot be granted to quash the decision of an inferior court within its jurisdic­tion on the ground that the decision is wrong. It must be shown before such a writ is issued, that the authority which passed the order acted:

(i) Without jurisdiction, or

(ii) In excess of Jurisdiction, or

(iii) In violation of the principles of natural justice.

Want of Jurisdiction may arise from the nature of the subject matter, so that the inferior court may not have authority to enter on the inquiry or upon some part of it. It may also arise from the ab­sence of some essential preliminary or upon the existence of some particular facts collateral to the actual matter which the court has to try and which are condition precedent to the assumption of jurisdiction by it. The want of jurisdiction may arise-

i.ytimg.com

(a) From the nature of the subject-matter of the proceeding, or

(b) From the absence of some preliminary proceeding, or

(c) The court itself may be legally constituted, or

(d) The court itself may suffer from certain disability by reasons of extraneous circumstances. When the jurisdiction of the Court depends upon the existence of some collateral fact, it is well settled that the Court cannot by a wrong decision of the fact, give it jurisdiction which it would not otherwise possess.

But once it is held that the court has jurisdiction but, while exer­cising it; it made a mistake, the wronged party can only take the course prescribed by law for setting the matters right inasmuch as a court has jurisdiction to decide rightly as well as wrongly.

When an inferior court or tribunal which has the power of deciding facts, is established by the Legislature, it may in effect say that if a certain state of facts exists and is shown to such tribunal or body before it proceeds to do certain things, it shall have jurisdiction to do such things but not otherwise.

There it is not for them conclusively to decide whether that state of facts exist and if they exercise the juris­diction without its existence what they do may be questioned, and it will be held that they have acted without jurisdiction.

But the Legis­lature may entrust the Court or tribunal itself with the jurisdiction which includes the jurisdiction to determine whether the preliminary state of facts exists and on finding that it does exist, to proceed fur­ther or do something more.

In the second case the rule that a tribunal cannot give itself jurisdiction by wrongly deciding certain facts to exist, does not apply.