T. C. BASAPPA versus T. NAGAPPA AND ANOTHER.

Citation: [1955] 1 S.C.R. 250 · Decided: 05-05-1954 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1954 
.May5. 
250 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
T. C. BASAPPA 
v. 
T. NAGAPPA AND ANOTHER. 
[MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN C.J., MUKHERJEA, 
V1v1AN BosE, BHAGWATI and 
VENKATARAMA AYYAR JJ.J 
[1955) 
Constitution 
of 
India-Article 
226-Certiorari, 
writ 
of-
General principles governing the issue thereof-Manifest and patent 
error apparent on the face of proceedings-Clear ignorance or dis-
regard of a provision of law-Absence or excess of jurisdiction. 
The issue of prerogative 
writs in the nature of habeas corpus, 
mandamus, quo 'warranto, prohib£tion and certiorari had their origin 
in England in the King's 
prerogative 
power of 
superintendenCe 
over the due observance of law by his officials and Tribunals. 
The powers of the Supren1e Court as well as of all the High 
Courts in India under articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution res-
pectively are very wide. 
The Supreme Court as well as the High .Courts 
in India can 
make an order or issue 
a writ in the nature 
of 
certiorari in all 
appropriate cases and in appropriate manner so long as the 
broad 
and fundamental principles of English law regulating the exercise 
of jurisdiction in the matter of granting such writs are adhered to. 
A writ of certiorari can be availed of only to remove or adjµ-
dicate upon the validity of judicial acts, which expression includes 
the exercise of quasi-judicial functions bv administrative .bodies 
or >--.,.--
other authorities or persons obliged to exercise such functions but 
does not include purely ministerial acts. 
. 
In granting a writ of certiorari the superior 
Court does not 
exercise the power of an appellate Tribunal. the control exercised 
through it being merely in a supervisory and not appellate capacity. 
_,.. 
It does not review or reweigh the evidence 
upon. which 
the 
determination of the inferior Court is based 
nor docs it substitute 
its own views for those of the inferior Tribunal. 
A writ of certio1·ari is generally 
granted whei:i ·a CoUrt 
has 
acted without or in excess 
of its 
jurisdiction. The want of juris-
"",.J.., 
diction may arise from the natu.re of the subiect-matter of the pro-
'o 
ceeding or from the absence of some preliminary proceeding or the 
Court itself 
may not be legally constituted or may suffer from a 
certain 
disability 
by 
reason of extraneous circumstances. 
If the 
jurisdiction of the Court depends upon the existence of some colla-
teral fact the. Court cannot by a wrong decision of the fact assume 
jurisdiction which it would. not. otherwise possess. 
A writ of certiorari is available in those cases 
where a Tribtl-
nal though competent to enter upon an enquiry acts 
in flagrant 
disre·gard of the rules 
of procedure or 
violates the principles of · .( 
natural justice where no particular procedure is prescribed. 
• 
-
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
251 
A mere wrong decision cannot be corrected by a writ of .certi-
orari as that would be using it as the cloak of an appeal in disguise 
but a manifest error apparent on the face of the proceeding based 
on a clear ignorance or disregard of the provisions of law or absence 
of or excess of jurisdiction, when shown, can be so corrected. 
· 
Held, that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case 
the High Court was not right 
in holding that sufficient and proper 
grounds existed for the issue of certiorari in the present case. 
Ryots of Garabandho v. Zemindar of Parlakimedi (70 I.A. 129, 
140); Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao ([1953] 
S.C.R. 1144, 1150); Rex v. Electricity Commissioners ([1924] 1 K.B. 
171, 205) ; Walshall's Overseers v. London and Northern Western 
Railway Co. ( 4 A.C. 30, 39) ; King v. Nat Bell Liquors Limited 
([1922] 2 A.C. 128, 156); Banbury v. Fuller, (9 Exch. 111); Queen v. 
Commissioners for Special Purposes of the Income Tax (21 Q.B.D. 
313) ; Rex v. Northumberland 
Compensation 
Appellate 
Tribunal 
([1952] 1 K.B. 338, 357); Veerappa Pillai v. Raman & Raman Ltd., 
-' 
([1952] S.C.R. 583, 594); and Halsbury, Vol. IX, 2nd edition, page 
, 880, referred to. 
CIVIL 
APPELLATE 
JuRISDICTION: Civil 
Appeal No. 
48 of 1954. 
Appeal from the Judgment and Order dated 
the 
11th January, 1954, of the High Court of Judicature of 
Mysore in Civil Petition No. 29 of 1953, quashing the 
Order of the Election Tribunal, Shimoga dated the 
15th January, 1953, in Shimoga No. 1 of 1952-53. 
K. S. Krishnaswami Iyengar 
(K. S. Venkataranga 
Iyengar and M. S. K. Iyengar, 
with him) for 
the 
appellant. 
Dr. B

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.