Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.32 seconds)Syed Yakoob vs K.S. Radhakrishnan & Others on 7 October, 1963
9. The parameters of certiorari jurisdiction are delineated in the
following passages of Syed Yakoob v K.S. Radhakrishnan5:
Hari Vishnu Kamath vs Syed Ahmad Ishaque And Others on 9 December, 1954
Similarly, if a
finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as
an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In
dealing with this category of cases, however, we must always bear
in mind that a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be
challenged in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground
that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the
Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned
finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and
the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within
the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the said points
cannot be agitated before a writ Court. It is within these limits that
the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 226 to
issue a writ of certiorari can be legitimately exercised (vide Hari
Vishnu Kamath v Syed Ahmad Ishaque6, Nagandra Nath Bora v
Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals Assam7
and Kaushalya Devi v Bachittar Singh8.
Nagendra Nath Bora & Another vs The Commissioner Of Hills Divisionand ... on 7 February, 1958
Similarly, if a
finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as
an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In
dealing with this category of cases, however, we must always bear
in mind that a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be
challenged in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground
that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the
Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned
finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and
the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within
the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the said points
cannot be agitated before a writ Court. It is within these limits that
the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 226 to
issue a writ of certiorari can be legitimately exercised (vide Hari
Vishnu Kamath v Syed Ahmad Ishaque6, Nagandra Nath Bora v
Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals Assam7
and Kaushalya Devi v Bachittar Singh8.
Bijender Singh & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 1 September, 2015
In addition, we find that our view stands fortified by paras 45.1,
46 and 47 of the judgment of the Supreme Court, rendered on 23 April
2025 in Bijender Singh v UOI9, which may be reproduced thus:
1