Syed Yakoob v K. S. Radhakrishnan (1964)

It is the leading Indian statement of the scope of certiorari, and it should be quoted rather than paraphrased. It states the grounds, the supervisory limitation, the two ways in which a finding of fact may nevertheless be attacked, and what an error of law apparent on the face of the record is.

The dispute concerned a transport permit. The High Court had interfered with a finding about whether a rival applicant had a workshop at a terminus of the route.

The interference was not justified. The finding was "a pure question of fact", and the absence of reasons for it "would not justify the interference of the High Court in its jurisdiction under Article 226."

The grounds. "A writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals: where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals without jurisdiction, or is in excess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdiction." It may equally issue where, in exercising the jurisdiction it has, "the Court or Tribunal acts illegally or properly, as for instance, it decides a question without giving an opportunity to be heard to the party affected by the order, or where the procedure adopted in dealing with the dispute is opposed to principles of natural justice." (read improperly)

The limitation. "the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is not entitled to act as an appellate Court. This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal as result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be."

The two ways a finding of fact can nevertheless be attacked — the part students miss. Certiorari may issue "if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the Tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding." And "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."

What cannot be attacked. "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."

Error of law apparent on the face of the record. The Court is candid that "It is, of course, not easy to define or adequately describe" it. What is corrected "has to be an error of law; but it must be such an error of law as can be regarded as one which is apparent on the face of the record." The examples are the syllabus's own: where "the conclusion of law recorded by an inferior Court or Tribunal is based on an obvious miss-interpretation of the relevant statutory provision, or sometimes in ignorance of it, or may be, even in disregard of it, or is expressly founded on reasons which are wrong in law". In such cases "the impugned conclusion should be so plainly inconsistent with the relevant statutory provision that no difficulty is experienced by the High Court in holding that the said error of law is apparent on the face of the record." Sometimes the error "may not be obvious or patent on the face of the record as such and the Court may need an argument to discover the said error". But the decisive negative: "If a statutory provision is reasonably capable of two constructions and one construction has been adopted by the inferior Court or Tribunal, its conclusion may not necessarily or always be open to correction by a writ of certiorari." And no definition is possible — the question "must always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and" "upon the nature and scope of the legal provision which is alleged to have been misconstrued or contravened."

Certiorari lies for errors of jurisdiction, for illegality or impropriety in the exercise of jurisdiction including breach of natural justice, and for an error of law apparent on the face of the record. It does not lie to reopen findings of fact reached on appreciation of evidence, except where inadmissible evidence was admitted or admissible evidence refused, or where the finding rests on no evidence at all.

• On the writs: it is the certiorari case, as Anadi Mukta is the mandamus case. Remember the timing rule that divides certiorari from prohibition: prohibition while the proceedings are pending, certiorari after the decision.
• Read it with Surya Dev Rai, which restates the grounds as gross errors of jurisdiction, holds that certiorari may issue to a subordinate civil court even between private parties, and defines a patent error as one "which can be perceived or demonstrated without involving into any lengthy or complicated argument or a long-drawn process of reasoning."
• The proposition that a finding based on no evidence is an error of law is the bridge to Chapter 12's grounds of review, where the same defect appears as acting on no material.