Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. It is pertinent to note that this Court as a writ Court is exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the relief prayed for is the issuance of a writ of certiorari. The concept of burden of proof in its literal sense cannot be imported while deciding a case of this nature. This aspect cannot be stretched too far and to be exercised within the permissible limits while exercising the writ jurisdiction in general and the issuance of a writ of certiorari in particular, the same being discretionary and supervisory in nature. It is made clear that this is not a case where any mala fide action had been complained of by the writ petitioner or there is abuse of the discretionary power. The very object of a writ of certiorari is to keep all inferior Tribunals and subordinate Courts within their limits and this aspect had been well explained by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Ryots of Garabandho v. Zamindar of Parlakimedi, AIR 1943 PC 164. As already referred to supra, issuance of a writ of certiorari is discretionary and supervisory in nature and questions of fact cannot be decided in a certiorari proceeding. In T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa, , the Apex Court observed :