ASSIGNMENT ON

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW-II

TOPIC: Jurisdictional error and writ of certiorari

Submitted by,
Ann David
6th semester BBA.LLB(Hons)
Roll.no- 6

1
 TABLE OF CASES

1. A.K. Kraipak v. UOI, AIR 1970 SC 150………………………………………………3,14

2. Ammal v. Ramma, AIR 1953 Mad. 129…………………………………………………..9
3. Anisminic v. Foreign Compensation Commission, [1969] 2 AC 147………….......6,14,15
4. Brij Khandelwal v. UOI, Air 1975 Delhi 184………………………………………….....4
5. Budh Prakash Jai Prakash v. STO, AIR 1952 All 764 ……………………………………8
6. Daud Ahmed v. District Magistrate Allahabad, AIR 1972 SC 896……………………...13
7. Ebrahim Aboobekar v. Custodian General, AIR 1952SC 319…………………………….7
8. Ebrahim Aboobekar v. Tek Chand, AIR 1953 SC 298…………………………………...8
9. J.K Chaudhuri v. R.K. Datta Gupta, AIR 1958 SC 722………………………………….12
10. Management N.P.C Corporation v. Workmen, AIR 1977 SC 283……………….……...12
11. Munni Devi Anr. v. Gokal Chand and Ors, 1970 AIR 1727………………………….....11
12. Nalini Ranjan v. Annada Shankar, AIR 1952 Cal 112…………………………………..12
13. Newspaper Ltd v. State Industrial Tribunal, AIR 1957 SC 532…………………………..8
14. Prabodh Verma State of U.P., AIR1985SC 167………………………………………....14
15. R v. Minister of Transport, [1934] 1 KB 277……………………………………………..9
16. Rafiq Khan v. State of U.P., AIR 1974 All 3 ……………………………………………..8
17. Raja Anand v. State of U.P, AIR 1967 SC 1081…………………………………………10
18. Ridge v. Baldwin, [1963] 2 All ER 66…………………………………………………....5
19. Roshan Lal v. Ishwar Dass, AIR 1962 SC 646.………………………………………….10
20. Seisi Municipality v. Cecelia Karr Francis Tellis, AIR 1973 SC 855……………….......13
21. Shauquin Singh v. Desa Singh, AIR 1970 SC 672………………………………………10
22. State of M.P. v. D.K. Jadav, AIR 1968 SC 186…………….………………………...….10
23. State of Punjab v. K.R. Erry, AIR 1973 SC 834…………………………………………12
24. Suman Lal Parekh and Ors v. Collector of Central Excise, AIR 1974 Cal 158………….11

2
 CONTENTS

SL.NO TOPIC PAGE.NO

1. INTRODUCTION 4-5

2. JURISDICTIONAL ERROR AND WRIT

OF CERTIORARI:

A. LACK OF JURISDICTION. 7-9

B. ABSENCE OF COLLATERAL
FACTORS NECESSARY TO
CONTRIBUTE JURISDICTION. 9-12

C. EXCESS OF JURISDICTION. 12

D. NON-COMPLIANCE WITH
PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL
JUSTICE. 12-13

3. CONCLUSION 14-15

4. BIBLIOGRAPHY 16

3
 INTRODUCTION

Certiorari means ‘to certify’. It was essentially a royal demand for information. The King,
wishing to be certified of some matter, ordered that the necessary information be provided to
him. In the beginning, certiorari was never used to call for the record of proceedings of an Act or
Ordinance for quashing those. The proper remedy in such cases was Declaration and Mandamus.
However, with the passage of time the scope of certiorari has undergone change.
Certiorari may be defined as an order issued by the Supreme Court or High Court to an
inferior court or any authority exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions to investigate and
decide the legality of the order passed by it.The main object of certiorari is to keep inferior courts
and quasi-judicial authorities within the limits of their jurisdiction; and if they act in excess of
their jurisdiction their decisions can be quashed by superior courts by issuing this writ.
The writ of certiorari is a remedy operating in personam, therefore, a writ can be issued
even where an authority has become functus officio, to the keeper of records. The constituency
within which writ of certiorari can be operative has been tremendously enlarged because it is
corrective in nature. Initially certiorari was only available against lower Court or Tribunal. In
Brij Kandelwal v. union of india1 , a case pertaining to territorial dispute was challenged before
the Supreme Court for the issue of writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction preventing the respondent from ceding the island of Kachchativu to Sri Lanka without
making necessary Amendment to the Constitution. Union of India argued that, the decision is not
of any lower Court or Tribunal so, the correctness of the decision cannot be challenged. It was
held that, the writ of prohibition is sought against Union of India, and the impugned actions of
entering into agreement and ratifications thereof are not judicial or quasi-judicial functions but
are only in the exercise of executive functions of the Government of India and therefore, the
prayer for a writ of certiorari and prohibition would not lie. This view was changed only after the
decision in Ridge v. Baldwin2 through which fairness in administrative action evolved.

1
AIR 1975 Delhi 184
2
[1963] 2 ALL ER 66

4
 In India, the writ of certiorari and prohibition gained its relevance in administrative action
only after the decision in A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India3, where the writ of certiorari was
issued to quash the decision of the Selection Board.The Supreme Court observed “The horizon
of natural justice is constantly expanding". There are two strands of thought in these statements;
(i) Duty to act fairly lies on any administrative authority whether administrative or quasi-judicial;
(ii) the concept of quasi-judicial has been expanding in modern times.
So, now, a writ of Certiorari and Prohibition can be issued against Constitutional bodies(
legislature, executive and judiciary), Statutory Bodies ( like corporations and other authorities
created under a statute), non-statutory bodies (like companies and cooperative societies) and
private bodies and persons. The requirement that certiorari can be issued only when the action is
judicial or quasi-judicial is no more valid.

3
AIR 1970 SC 150

5
 JURISDICTIONAL ERROR AND WRIT
OF CERTIORARI
One of the important grounds on which the writ of certiorari may be issued is
‘jurisdictional error’. Jurisdictional error may occur in different ways. They are:

1. Lack of jurisdiction.
2. Absence of collateral factors necessary to contribute jurisdiction.
3. Excess of jurisdiction.
4. Non-compliance with principles of natural justice
The judicial review on the basis of jurisdictional error has been strengthened and made
complicated by Anisminic v. Foreign Compensation Commission4. The court in this case on the
ground of jurisdictional error had reviewed the order of Foreign Compensation Commission in
spite of the presence of an ouster clause.The Anisminic case5 became the leading example of
jurisdictional error by a Tribunal in the course of its proceedings. In the case, the Foreign
Compensation Commission had rejected a claim for compensation for a property already sold to
a foreign buyer on the erroneous ground that the statutory order required the successor in title
should have been a British nationality at a certain date. The majority of House of Lords held
that this error destroyed the Commission's jurisdiction and rendered their decision a nullity, since
on a true view of law they had no jurisdiction to take the successor in title’s nationality into
account. Thus, any administrative action, if not in compliance with the statutory provision, can
be challenged on the basis of jurisdictional error viz. Excess of jurisdiction, absence of
jurisdiction, abuse of jurisdiction.

4
[1969] 2 AC 147
5
ibid

6
 Thus, if the authority decides beyond its jurisdiction, without jurisdiction or inconsistent
with principles of natural justice or fails to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law the decision
will be nullity. In case of nullity the higher court can interfere in the decision. Nullity may arise:-
A. When there is a lack of jurisdiction at the stage of commencement of enquiry. e.g. when-
a. Authority is assumed under an ultra vires statute.
b. The Tribunal is not properly constituted or is disqualified to act.
B. Case of nullity may also arise when:-
a. The court has wrongly determined the jurisdictional question of fact or
law.
b. When it has failed to follow fundamental principles of judicial procedure.
c. When it acts in bad faith.
d. When it by misapplication of law has asked itself a wrong question.
In Ebrahim Aboobekar v. Custodian General 6, the Supreme Court observed:
“It is plain that such a writ cannot be granted to quash the decision of an inferior court
within its jurisdiction on the ground that the decision is wrong. Indeed, it must be shown
before such a writ is issued that the authority which passed the order acted without
jurisdiction or in excess of it.”

1. LACK OF JURISDICTION :

Lack of jurisdiction refers to such situations where an authority has no jurisdiction at all
to take an action. It is a basic principle of administrative law that nobody can act beyond its
power; this lies at the basis of judicial review on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Lack of
jurisdiction may also arise when an authority has no jurisdiction over the subject-matter or the
parties.

6
AIR 1952 SC 319(322)

7
 In Newspaper Ltd v. State Industrial Tribunal7 , under the provisions of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, the appropriate Government is empowered to refer an ‘industrial dispute’ to
a Tribunal constituted under the Act, But if the Government refers a dispute to the Industrial
Tribunal for adjudication which is not an ‘industrial dispute’ within the meaning of Industrial
Dispute Act, 1947, the Tribunal ha no jurisdiction to entertain and decide such dispute. In this
case, the State referred a matter to the Industrial Tribunal even though it was not strictly an
Industrial Dispute. The Tribunal disposed of the matter even if it lacked jurisdiction. Writ of
certiorari was issued and the order was quashed on the ground that it was without jurisdiction.
In Ebrahim Aboobaker v. Tek Chand8, it was held that, in the absence of any provision
in the relevant statute, after a man is dead, his property cannot be declared as an evacuee
property. The decision of the authority would be without jurisdiction.
In Rafiq Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh9, section 85 of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj
Act, 1947 gave power to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) to either quash the entire order of
the Panchayat Adalat or to cancel its jurisdiction. The SDM had no power to modify the order in
any manner. The court issued a writ of certiorari to quash the decision of the SDM where he had
modified the conviction passed by the Panchayat Adalat by quashing the conviction of the
accused for one offence and maintaining it in respect of the other offence.
In Budh Prakash Jai Prakash v. STO10, this case illustrates lack of jurisdiction where the
subject - matter was outside the scope of the extent of jurisdiction of an authority. In this case,
the Sales Tax Act, 1948, imposed tax on forward contracts irrespective of the place where the
delivery took place. The court issued the writ of certiorari on the ground that the subject matter
was outside the jurisdiction of the authority.
In R v. Minister of Transport11, in this case, even though the miniter was not empowered
to revoke a licence, he passed an order of revocation of licence. The order was quashed on the
ground that it was without jurisdiction and therefore ultra vires.

7
AIR 1957 SC 532
8
AIR 1953 SC 298
9
AIR 1954 All 3
10
AIR 1952 All 764
11
[1934] 1 KB 277

8
 Lack of jurisdiction may also arise when an authority is not properly constituted. If an
authority is not properly constituted, then it cannot have any jurisdiction to act. In Ammal v.
Ramma12, where the statute requires three members to constitute a tribunal, a tribunal composed
of only two members was held to be acting without jurisdiction by Madras High Court.

2. ABSENCE OF COLLATERAL FACTORS

NECESSARY TO CONTRIBUTE JURISDICTION:

Jurisdictional error may also arise from the absence of collateral factors which is
necessary to contribute jurisdiction.Lack of jurisdiction may arise from the absence of some
preliminary factors which must exist before a Tribunal exercises its jurisdiction. They are known
as ‘jurisdictional’ or ‘collateral facts’. The existence of these facts is a sine qua non or a
condition precedent to the assumption of jurisdiction by an inferior Court or Tribunal.
In simple words, the fact or facts upon which an administrative agency’s power to act
depends can be called a ‘jurisdictional fact’. If the jurisdictional fact does not exist, the court or
Tribunal cannot act.If an inferior court or Tribunal wrongly assumes the existence of such a fact,
a writ of certiorari can be issued. Thus, the underlying principle is that by erroneously presuming
such existence, cannot confer upon itself jurisdiction which is otherwise not vested in it under the
law. The doctrine of 'jurisdictional fact’ provides the main plank on which the superior court’s
power to examine the factual basis of administrative determinations.

So, ‘jurisdictional fact’ include:

● Facts which are necessary to constitute jurisdiction
● Facts which are relevant to decide the case

12
AIR 1953 Mad. 129

9
 If the authority itself is given power to decide the preliminary fact and it decides it
wrongly, a writ of certiorari does not lie. The order can be corrected only in appeal or revision, if
it is provided under the relevant statute. It must, however, be remembered that the Legislature
vests the administrative body to decide questions of jurisdiction only in rare and exceptional
cases. It is, therefore, the duty of the judiciary to inquire as to whether a particular fact is
jurisdictional or not.
In Roshan Lal v. Ishwar Dass13, that absence of jurisdiction may arise from the absence
of some essential preliminary matters or of facts collateral to those forming the subject matter of
the tribunal’s enquiry, but whose existence is a condition precedent to the assumption of
jurisdiction. Thus, the place of jurisdictional fact in judicial review is indeed of significant
importance. It affords a useful check on administrative excess.
In Raja Anand v. State of Uttar Pradesh14, it was observed that the underlying principle
is that, by erroneously presuming such existence, an inferior Court or Tribunal cannot confer
upon itself jurisdiction which is otherwise vested in it under law.
In State of Madhya Pradesh v. D.K. Jadav15, under the relevant statute all jagirs,
including land, forest, trees, tanks, wells, etc, were abolished and vested in the State. However,
all tanks, trees, private wells and buildings on ‘occupied land’ were excluded from the provisions
of the Statute. If they were on ‘unoccupied land’ they stood vested in the State. The Supreme
Court held that the question whether the tanks, wells, etc, were on ‘occupied land’ or
‘unoccupied land’ was a jurisdictional fact.
In Shaquin Singh v. Desa Singh16, the relevant statute empowered the Chief Settlement
Commissioner to cancel an allotment of land if he was ‘satisfied’ that the order of allotment was
obtained by means of ‘fraud, false representation or concealment of any material fact’.Th
Supreme Court held that the satisfaction of the statutory authority was a jurisdictional fact and
the power can be exercised only on the existence thereof.

13
AIR 1962 SC 646
14
AIR 1967 SC 1081
15
AIR 1968 SC 1186
16
AIR 1970 SC 672

10
 In Suman Lal Parekh and Ors v. Collector of Central Excise17, the Gold (Control) Act,
1968 provides that a person can only possess ‘primary gold’ by getting necessary license under
section 27 of the said Act from concerned authority. In this case, the petitioners contravened the
provisions of the Gold (Controla) Act, 1968 as they acquired and had in their possession, custody
or control, ‘primary gold’ in violation of section 8(1) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968.
It was contented by the petitioner that the authorities had no jurisdiction or power to initiate any
proceedings under section 8(1) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 to issue a show cause notice in
respect of the articles which have been seized.
It was observed that the fact as to whether the article in question is ‘primary gold’ or not is
clearly a jurisdictional fact i.e, a collateral fact upon a correct finding of which assumption of
jurisdiction by the authorities under section 8(1) of the Act will depend and therefore writ of
certiorari was issued.
In Munni Devi and Anr v. Gokal Chand and Ors18, by section 7(2) of the U.P.
(Temporary ) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, the District Magistrate may require a
landlord to let or not let to any person any accommodation which is or has fallen vacant and
section 16 of the said Act provides that no order made under this Act by the State Government or
the District Magistrate shall be called in question in any court.
It was held that the legislature while investing the District Magistrate with power to allot the
premises to another person on the existence of a vacancy has not made his determination of the
preliminary state of facts conclusive. There is nothing in section 7 or section 7A which confers
jurisdiction upon the District Magistrate to conclusively determine the facts on the existence of
which his jurisdiction arises. Whether there is a vacancy is a jurisdictional fact which could not
be decided by him finally.
In Nalini Ranjan v. Annada Shankar19, illustrates the lack of jurisdiction where an
agency committed an error on jurisdictional facts. The jurisdiction of the Compensation
Commissioner under Wr Injuries Ordinance, 1941 depended on the existence or otherwise of the

17
AIR 1974 Cal 158
18
1970 AIR 1727
19
AIR 1952 Cal 112

11
war injury. Therefore, as the Commissioner was wrong in his findings as regard the injury, a writ
of certiorari was issued by High Court to quash it.

3. EXCESS OF JURISDICTION:
Excess of jurisdiction refers to cases where an authority has jurisdiction but exceeds

permitted limits. The tribunal or administrative authority may proceed with jurisdiction but if the
authority travels beyond the limits of the power the decision of the authority will be struck down
for exceeding the jurisdiction
J.K. Chaudhuri v. R.K. Dutta20, is a case which is illustrative of this aspect. In this case,
the governing body of a college affiliated to Gauhati University dismissed its Principal, Datta
Gupta, on the ground of misconduct. The Executive Committee of the Gauhati University, after
hearing the representations, ordered reinstatement. The Court issued certiorari to quash the
decision on the ground of excess jurisdiction because the jurisdiction of the university under
section 21(9) of the Gauhati University Act, 1947 was confined to teachers and did not extend to
a case where the person holds the office of the principal also.
In Management N.P.C Corporation v. Workmen21, there was a dispute between the
Appellant and Its employees. As a result of a settlement, the pay scale of the muster roll
workmen was decided and certain other questions regarding other categories of workmen were
referred to the tribunal. The Tribunal gave an award allowing 25% increase in the wages of all
labourers including muster-roll workmen. The Appellant contended that the question of the pay
scale of the muster-roll workmen was not referred to the Tribunal and the Tribunal exceeded ~its
jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held. "The pay scale of the muster-roll workmen decided as a
result of the settlement and rhai u,as not one of the questions referred to the arbitrator. The
Industrial Tribunal was therefore acting beyond its jurisdiction in allowing a 25% increase.

20
AIR 1958 SC 722
21
AIR 1977 SC 283

12
 4. NON-COMPLIANCE WITH PRINCIPLES OF
NATURAL JUSTICE:

A writ of certiorari may be issued when there is a violation of the principles of natural
justice.
In State of Punjab v. K.R. Erry22, the pension benefits of an Assistant Engineer, Public
Works Department, were reduced based on an adverse confidential report without giving him a
hearing. The court issued a writ of certiorari to quash the decision on the ground of violation of
principles of natural justice.
In Siesi Municipality v. Cecelia Kom Francis Tellis23, a hospital worker was dismissed
for alleged negligence which resulted in the death of a patient in the maternity ward of the
Municipality Hospital, without providing him a hearing. The court quashed the decision on the
ground of violation principles of natural justice.
In Daud Ahmed v. District Magistrate Allahabad24, the District Magistrate requisitioned
property in the personal possession of the owner for a judge without giving any hearing. Section
3 of the U.P.(Temporary) Accommodation Requisition Act, 1947 provided that an accomodation
in personal possession cannot be requisitioned unless the District Magistrate is of the opinion
that an alternative accommodation exists. The court came to the conclusion that the owner
should have been given an opportunity to be heard before arriving at the conclusion, and issued
the writ of certiorari to quash the action.

22
AIR 1973 SC 834
23
AIR 1973 SC 855
24
AIR 1972 SC 896

13
 CONCLUSION
The writ of certiorari controls all courts, tribunals and other authorities when they purport
to act without jurisdiction, or in excess of it. Initially writ of certiorari was only available against
lower courts or Tribunal but after the decision in Kraipak case25, so, at present the writ is
available against administrative actions. One of the important limitations of writ of certiorari is
that it is not an appeal remedy, it is only a ground of judicial review, i.e, the court can only
intervene if the decision is illegal. In Prabodh Verma v. State of Uttar Pradesh26, it was laid
down that the writ of certiorari can never be issued to call for the record of papers and
proceedings of an Act or Ordinance and for quashing such Act or Ordinance.This is also a
limitation of the scope of the writ of certiorari.
One of the important grounds on which a writ of certiorari may be issued is when there is
a jurisdictional error. Jurisdictional error amounts to lack of jurisdiction, excess of jurisdiction,
absence of collateral factors necessary to contribute jurisdiction and finally when there is
non-compliance with principles of natural justice. So, writ of certiorari may be issued on the
ground of jurisdictional error when an authority acts beyond, lacks jurisdiction.
But, in most of the cases, the authority may have jurisdiction. The question that arises in
this context is that if the authority commits an error within its jurisdiction whether it is amenable
to writ of certiorari. As a solution to this, the concept of error within jurisdiction was introduced
by the court through the case of Anisminic v.Foreign Compensation Commission27
Till the decision in Anisminic case28, the principle was that an error committed by an
administrative authority within its jurisdiction could not be challenged. In Anisminic case29 even
if a mistake had been committed by the Foreign Compensation Commission, there was no
jurisdictional error, since the Commission had the jurisdiction to ascertain the maintainability of
the application. In the case, the Commission not only looked into the claimant’s personality but

25
Ibid., p. 5
26
AIR 1858 SC 167
27
Ibid., p. 6
28
ibid
29
ibid

14
also looked into whether the successor in title is a British national. Analysis of the case put
forward two conflicting evils:-
➔ Mistake committed by the Foreign Compensation Commissioner may continue
➔ If the mistake is corrected through writ of certiorari, the essential difference between
review and appeal will disappear.
So, the court suggested a new principle to overcome the situation - Error apparent on the face of
record, where, it was made clear that, all mistakes which are committed by administrative
authority within its jurisdiction is not amenable to writ of certiorari but it is amenable only if it is
evident on the face of record.
Thus, courts exercise broader review powers in relation to error of law within
jurisdiction. Thus, the question is: what errors do, and what do not carry an authority outside
jurisdiction? In short, what counts as “jurisdictional error”? In tackling the question “what counts
as” “jurisdictional error?” The Anisminic30 case is a "legal landmark”.The difference between
jurlsdictlonal error and error within jurisdiction is still maintained in India.

30
Ibid., p. 6

15
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Massey, I.P. (2018). Administrative Law. Lucknow, Eastern Book Company.

2. Justice Thakkar, C.K. (1998). Lectures on Administrative Law. Lucknow, Eastern
Book Company.
3. https://indiankanoon.org
4. https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in

16