Anita Devi v. The State Election Commission (Panchayat ) & Ors.

The State Election Commission (Panchayat ), Sone Bhawan, Birchand Patel Path, Patna through the State Election Commissioner. The Secretary, the State Election Commission (Panchayat), Sone Bhawan, Birchand Patel Path, Patna. The District Election Officer-cum-District Magistrate, Gaya, District- Gaya. The Returning Officer, Tankuppa- cum- Block Development Officer, Tankuppa, P.O. and P.S. Tankuppa, District - Gaya. Sri Surendra Yadav, son of Late Sheobarat Yadav, Resident of village- Bhetaura, P.O. Bahasa Pipra, P.S. Fatehpur, District - Gaya. Smt. Ankita Singh, wife of Sri Karu Singh, Resident of village- Bhetaura, P.O. Bahasa Pipra, P.S. Fatehpur, District - Gaya. Smt. Anita Devi, wife of Sri Indrajeet Yadav, Resident of village- Tetariya, Tola- Karmatar, P.O. Dhibar, P.S. Fatehpur, District - Gaya. Sri Gauri Shankar Yadav, son of Sri Kripa Yadav, Resident of village- Babhnima, P.O. Bahasa Pipra, P.S. Fatehpur, District - Gaya. Smt. Champa Devi, wife of Sri Pappu Paswan, Resident of village- Bhetaura, P.O. Bahasa Pipra, P.S. Fatehpur, District - Gaya.

Sri Satyendra Yadav, son of Sri Chhatradhari Yadav, Resident of village- Tetariya, P.O. Dhibar, P.S. Fatehpur, District - Gaya. ====================================================== ... ... Respondent/s Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3410 of 2024 ====================================================== Surendra Yadav S/o Late Sheobarat Yadav, R/o Village - Bhetaura, P.O- Bahasapipara, P.S- Fatehpur, District- Gaya. Versus ... ... Petitioner/s

The State of Bihar through District Election Officer cum District Magistrate Gaya, District Collectorate, Gaya 823001. The State Election Commissioner, Bihar, Sone Bhawan Beerchand Patel Marg, Patna. The Returning Officer, Tankuppa cum Block Development Officer, Tankuppa P.O. and P.S- Tankuppa, District Gaya 824232. Smt. Anita Devi, W/o- Dillip Prasad Yadav, R/o Village Bhetaura, P.O.- Bahasapipara, P.S.- Fatehpur, District Gaya 824232. Patna High Court CWJC No.3937 of 2024 dt.07-07-2025

9. Smt. Ankita Singh, W/o- Karu Singh, R/o Village Bhetaura, P.O- Bahasapipara, P.S- Fatehpur, District- Gaya 824232. Smt. Anita Devi, W/o- Indrajeet Yadav, R/o village- Tetariya, Tola- Karmatar, P.O.- Dhibar, P.S.- Fatehpur, District- Gaya, Bihar 824232. Sri Gauri Shankar Yadav, S/o- Shri Kripqa Yadav, R/o Village - Bhetaura, P.O.- Bahasapipara, P.S.- Fatehpur, District- Gaya 824232. Smt. Champa Devi, W/o- Papu Paswan, R/o Village Bhetaura, P.O- Bahasapipara, P.S- Fatehpur, District- Gaya 824232. Sri Satyendra Yadav, S/o- Sri Chatradhari Yadav, R/o village- Tetariya, Tola- Karmatar, P.O.- Dhibar, P.S.- Fatehpur, District- Gaya, Bihar 824232. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : (In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3937 of 2024) : For the Petitioner/s Mr. S.B.K. Mangalam, Advocate Mr. Awnish Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Additional Advocate General-12 Mr. Ravi Ranjan, Advocate (In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3410 of 2024) : For the Petitioner/s For the Respondent/s : Mr. P.K. Verma, Sr. Advocate Mr. Praveen Kumar, Advocate Mr. Government Pleader- 27 Mr. Ravi Ranjan, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA Date : 07-07-2025 CAV JUDGMENT CWJC NO.3937 OF 2024 Heard the parties.

The petitioner in the present writ application has prayed for the grant of following reliefs:

(I) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of CERTIORARI for quashing the judgment and order dated 08.01.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)-1, Gaya as Election Tribunal in Election Petition No. 01 of 2023 whereby and where under the learned Civil Judge has been pleased to allow the election petition on contest against the writ petitioner and other Opposite-parties, the election of writ petitioner has been set aside and has also been pleased to set aside the entire process Patna High Court CWJC No.3937 of 2024 dt.07-07-2025 of election of Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Raj, Bhetaura under Tankuppa Block of Gaya District with a direction for re-election without any undue delay. (II) For reinstatement of the petitioner to the post of Mukhiya which he was holding before the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)-1, Gaya and to pay all consequential benefits for which the petitioner would have been entitled if his election would not have been set aside by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)-1, Gaya. (III) For issuance of any other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions for which the writ petitioner would be found entitled under the facts and circumstances of the case.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Respondent State Election Commission had notified Panchayat Election, 2021 for the post of Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Raj, Bhetaura under Tankuppa Block of Gaya district. The petitioner and respondent no.5 to 10 had filed their nominations to contest for the post of Mukhiya of the said Gram Panchayat. As per the notification issued by the Respondent Commission, the following was the schedule for holding Gram Panchayat Election in the Gram Panchayat, Bhetaura under Tankuppa Block of Gaya district: Date of filing of nomination : 09.10.2021 to 25.10.2021. Date of scrutiny of nomination paper : 28.10.2021. Last date for withdrawal of candidature : 29.10.2021 to 30.10.2021 Patna High Court CWJC No.3937 of 2024 dt.07-07-2025 Date of Poll : 15.11.2021 Date of Counting : 17.11.2021

4. After the last date of withdrawal of candidature, none of the nominated candidates had withdrawn his/her candidature and all the candidates finally contested the election which was held on 13 booths on 15.11.2021.

It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that after the votes were polled on 15.11.2021, they were counted on 17.11.2021 and after counting of votes the petitioner got the highest number of valid votes polled in her favour i.e. 2224 and the respondent no.5 had secured only 2212 votes, hence the petitioner was declared elected for the post of Mukhiya of the said Gram Panchayat and accordingly the certificate of election was given to her. The result sheet prepared in Form-21 has been brought on record as Annexure-P/1.

It is further submitted by the petitioner that after the petitioner was declared elected for the post of Mukhiya, the

respondent no.5, Surendra Yadav challenged the election by filing an election petition under Section 137 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, in the court of learned Munsif, IInd, Gaya, which was numbered as Election Petition No.01 of 2023.

In the said election petition prayer was made to set aside the election of the petitioner (returned candidate) as Mukhiya Patna High Court CWJC No.3937 of 2024 dt.07-07-2025 of the Bhetaura Gram Panchayat under Tankuppa Block, Gaya and upon setting aside of election of the petitioner (returned candidate), prayer was also made to declare the respondent no.5 as Mukhiya on account of the respondent no.5 having received majority of valid votes. The election petition filed by respondent no.5 has been brought on record by way of Annexure-P/2.

In the election petition, the case of respondent no.5 in brief was that he was a contestant for the post of Mukhiya of the Bhetaura Gram Panchayat under Tankuppa Block, Gaya (Nirvachan Kshetra No.3) in Bihar Gram Panchayat Election,

2021. The petitioner was also a contestant and so were others. Election was held on 15.11.2021 and on 17.11.2021 counting of votes was done. It was further stated by respondent no.5 in the election petition that to conduct election for Tankuppa Block a total of 155 booths were created, and out of these 155 booths, booth no.31 to 43 were created for polling for Bhetaura Gram Panchayat, and after polling of votes on 15.11.2021, a total of 6047 votes were polled for election of Mukhiya in the aforesaid booths pertaining to Bhetaura Gram Panchayat and the same was also reported by election agent, Ramashish Kumar.

9. It was further stated in the election petition by respondent no.5 that the Returning Officer, (respondent no.4), Patna High Court CWJC No.3937 of 2024 dt.07-07-2025 Tankuppa -cum- Block Development Officer, Tankuppa, Gaya, rightly and correctly prepared the “Voter Turn Report” (for brevity referred to as ‘VTR’), which was contained in memo no.228 dated

15.11.2021 whereunder it was reported that on booths no.31 to 43 total 6047 votes were polled by the voters and its booth wise details was as under: BOOTH NO. TOTAL VOTERS TOTAL VOTES POLLED 31 32 33 34 35 36 36(Ka) 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 524 735 448 470 755 452 453 678 620 424 716 583 428 779 395 550 333 356 571 324 355 496 482 298 547 452 298 590 TOTAL 8065 6047

10. In the election petition, it was further stated by the respondent no.5 that the Returning Officer was the counting authority and Incharge of counting process. Upon completion of counting, maximum valid votes of 2212 was secured by respondent no.5 and 2200 votes were secured by the petitioner and therefore, as per the respondent no.5, it was incumbent upon the Patna High Court CWJC No.3937 of 2024 dt.07-07-2025 Returning Officer to declare the respondent no.5 as elected Mukhiya for Bheteura Gram Panchayat, but the Returning Officer in collusion with the petitioner by adopting corrupt practices manipulated the votes and illegally showed that 2224 votes were polled in favour of the petitioner and therefore, on the basis of illegally added 24 votes the petitioner was declared Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat, Bheteura. Thereafter, it was stated by respondent no.5 that he had made a written application to the Returning Officer for recounting of votes but the same was not entertained by the Returning Officer.

Respondent no.5 also stated in the election petition that he had also made representation in this regard before the District Election Commission and State Election Commissioner, but it was to no avail. The respondent no.5 further contended in the election petition that the total voters turned out in Bhetaura Gram Panchayat was 6047 and the total votes polled by the voters was 6047 which as per respondent no.5 was evident from VTR prepared by the Returning Officer, but the Returning Officer illegally added 24 votes in favour of the petitioner and thereafter prepared Form-21 illegally showing therein that the petitioner had secured maximum votes of 2224 and in the column of total valid votes, total votes polled was illegally shown to be 6071 and thereby illegally declaring petitioner as the Mukhiya of Patna High Court CWJC No.3937 of 2024 dt.07-07-2025 Gram Panchayat, Bheteura. As per the respondent no.5, as averred in paragraph-8 of the election petition, the matter which arose for consideration was that how total votes of 6071 were polled as shown in Form-21, when only 6047 voters had turned out to poll their votes in Bheteura Gram Panchayat.

Both VTR and Form-21 were prepared by the Returning Officer then the discrepancy of 24 votes between the two documents, as alleged, was only possible because of Returning Officer acting in collusion with the petitioner with the object of declaring the petitioner as a winner and therefore, the Returning Officer illegally added 24 votes in favour of the petitioner and on the basis of illegal votes the Returning Officer declared the petitioner as elected Mukhiya, even though it was respondent no.5 who was legally entitled to be declared as Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat, Bheteura. Therefore, the respondent no.5 had prayed in the election petition, for setting aside the election of the petitioner and declaring the respondent no.5 as elected Mukhiya of Bheteura Gram Panchayat because of having secured maximum valid votes.

In the election petition Smt. Anita Devi (petitioner) was arrayed as O.P. No.1, Smt. Ankita Singh (contestant) was arrayed as O.P. No.2, Smt. Anita Devi (contestant) was arrayed as O.P. No.3, Sri Gauri Shankar Yadav (contestant) was arrayed as Patna High Court CWJC No.3937 of 2024 dt.07-07-2025 O.P. No.4, Smt. Champa Devi (contestant) was arrayed as O.P. No.5, Sri Satyendra Yadav (contestant) was arrayed as O.P. No.6, State Election Commissioner, Bihar, District Election Officer-cum- District Magistrate, Gaya and Returning Officer, Tankuppa were arrayed as O.P. No.7,8 and 9 respectively.

During the course of adjudication following issues were framed by the Election Tribunal:

I. Is the election petition as framed maintainable? II. Has the petitioner got any valid cause of action for this petition? III. Is the petition barred by provisions of Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006? IV. Whether the election of returned candidate, O.P. No.1 Smt. Anita Devi declaring her elected as Mukhiya of Bhetaura Gram Panchayat, is to be set aside? V. Whether petitioner is to be declared Mukhiya of Bhetaura Gram Panchayat after setting aside the election of Opposite Party No.1? VI. Whether the petitioner is entitled for any other reliefs?

Following evidences were adduced by the respondent no.5 before the Election Tribunal: Patna High Court CWJC No.3937 of 2024 dt.07-07-2025 EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE ELECTION PETITIONER. (1) Oral Evidence AW 1 AW 2 - Surendra Yadav (Election Petitioner) - Umesh Kumar (2) Documentary Evidence Exhibit 1 - Letter No.276 dated 14.03.2022 issued by B.D.O., Tankuppa, Gaya Exhibit 2 - Prapatra 21 (Form-21) Exhibit 2/A - Voter Turn Out Report (VTR) Exhibit 3 - Signature of the B.D.O. over Prapatra 21 Exhibit 4 to 4/M - Recorded Vote in EVM Part-1 (Annexure XII) Exhibit 5 to 5/L - Voter Register of Booth No.31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36(d), 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43. Following evidences were adduced by the opposite parties: EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES (1) Evidence by Opposite Party 1 (Oral Evidence) OP1/W1 OP1/W2 OP1/W3 OP1/W4 OP1/W5 OP1/W6 OP1/W7 OP1/W8 OP1/W9 OP1/W10 OP1/W11 OP1/W12 OP1/W13 OP1/W14 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sanjeev Kumar Vijay Singh Umesh Das Vinod Kumar Dhirendra Kumar Nagendra Paswan Ajit Kumar Vinod Kumar Rajendra Prasad Yadav Shravan Kumar Sujit Singh Dilip Prasad Yadav Anil Kumar Anita Devi (opposite party No.1, Returned Candidate) (Documentary Evidence for O.P. No.1) Exhibit A - Counting Report Form 20 (Part-1) (fourteen pages) Exhibit B - Counting Report Form 20 (Part-2) (one page) Patna High Court CWJC No.3937 of 2024 dt.07-07-2025 (2) Evidence by Opposite Party 3 to 5 (Oral Evidence) OP3-5/W1 OP3-5/W2 OP3-5/W3 - - - Indrajit Kumar Dilip Kumar Gauri Shankar Yadav (Documentary Evidence for O.P. No.3 to 5) (None) (3) Evidence by Opposite Party 6 (Oral Evidence) OP6/W1 - Satyendra Yadav (Documentary Evidence for O.P. No.6) (None) (4) Evidence by O.P. No.7 to 9 (opposite party 2nd Set) (Oral Evidence) OP7-9/W1 - Indrani Kumari (O.P. No.9) (Documentary Evidence for O.P. No.6) (None)

In addition to the above, the Election Tribunal had of its own called for the following documents which is recorded in paragraph 26 of the impugned judgment and order dated

08.01.2024. Paragraph-26 of the impugned order is quoted herein below for needful:

26. Documents called by the Court/Tribunal: (i) Original of Form 20 (Part 1) for Booth No. 31 to 43 (in fourteen pages), (ii) Original of Form 20 (Part 18/03/20/92) for Booth No. 31 to 43 (in one page) whose Xerox copies, later on, were compared and substituted in place of original vide order dated 19.04.2023, (iii) Hard Copy of Data of Mukhiya Elections for Booth No. 31 to 43 which is Annexure XII (in fourteen pages) (iv) Original Statutory Packet which are Envelopes containing several documents pertaining to Booth No 31 to 43 (in fourteen envelopes) has been sent by Block Development Officer, Tankuppa, Gaya vide letter No. 276 dated 14.03.2021.

Patna High Court CWJC No.3937 of 2024 dt.07-07-2025

After appraising all the oral and documentary evidences and the pleadings of all the parties, the Election Tribunal gave elaborate findings of fact which is recorded in paragraph-28 to 95 of the impugned judgment and order and based on those findings, in paragraph-96, the Election Tribunal has ordered as follows: “96. In the result it is therefore ORDERED That (1) The Election petition is allowed on contest against O.P. No 1. O.P No. 3 to 5, O. P. No. 6. O. P. No. 7 to 9, & ex-parte against O.P. No. 2 to the extent of setting aside the Election of O.P. No.1 Smt. Anita Devi as Mukhiya for Gram Panchayat Bhetaura, Nirvachan Chetra Sankhya -3, under Tankuppa Prakhand of District Gaya. (2) The entire election process of Mukhiya for Gram Panchayat Bhetaura, Nirvachan Chetra Sankhya-3, under Tankuppa Prakhand, District Gaya held in Bihar Gram Panchayat Elections 2021 is hereby set aside. (3) Re-election be conducted without undue delay for the post of Mukhiya for Gram Panchayat Bhetaura, Nirvachan Chetra Sankhya-3, under Tankuppa Prakhand, District Gaya, and Authorities concerned are accordingly directed to conduct the re-election of Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Bhetaura, Nirvachan Chetra Sankhya-3, under Tankuppa Prakhand, District Gaya in the prescribed manner. (4) One copy of this Final-Order/Judgement be immediately transmitted to District Election Officer cum District Magistrate, Gaya (O.P. No 8) and the State Election Commission, Bihar, Patna (O.P. No. 7) as mandated vide rule 113 of Bihar Panchayat Election Rules 2006. (5) No Cost Patna High Court CWJC No.3937 of 2024 dt.07-07-2025

Being aggrieved with the findings of fact and the final order given by the Election Tribunal, the petitioner has filed the present writ application challenging the same and while advancing argument the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner confined the challenge to the impugned judgment and order dated 08.01.2024 on the following counts: (a) As per the learned counsel for the petitioner, Form- 20 (Part-I) which was marked as Exhibit-A before the Election Tribunal was not considered in respect of booth no.37 and therefore, the impugned judgment and order was perverse on account of non-consideration of material evidence available on record. (b) The finding given by the Election Tribunal in paragraph-92 of the impugned judgment and order dated

08.01.2024 to the extent that there was improper reception of 24 votes which has “materially affected” the result of the election in favour of the petitioner, is without any evidence and therefore, the said finding is perverse. (c) The statement made by the respondent no.5 in paragraph-11 of election petition to the extent that the respondent no.5 had requested for recounting but the Returning Officer did not do recounting, is a false statement and therefore, the respondent Patna High Court CWJC No.3937 of 2024 dt.07-07-2025 no.5 had not approached the Election Tribunal with clean hands as he had suppressed the relevant facts which was in his knowledge. As per the petitioner, the recounting was done which was in the knowledge of the respondent no.5. (d) While deciding the dispute the Election Tribunal should have framed the issue “Whether the discrepancy in the total number of votes polled as per the VTR and the total votes counted ‘materially affected’ the outcome of the election, as per the strict requirement of Section 139(1)(d)(iii) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006?

By not framing this issue, the Election Tribunal could not have answered this issue in the impugned judgment and order dated 08.01.2024. (e) The evidence of the Returning Officer was incorrectly appraised which has led to the Election Tribunal recording wrong finding of fact. Further, based on the pleadings made in the Interlocutory Application No.01 of 2025 and Form-20 (Part-I) annexed with the said interlocutory application, the learned counsel for the petitioner made two additional submissions which were as follows: (f) Form No.20 (Part-I) as annexed with the Interlocutory Application No.01 of 2025, as per the petitioner, Patna High Court CWJC No.3937 of 2024 dt.07-07-2025 showed that respondent no.5 had put his signature on the said form and therefore, based on the principle of waiver, the respondent no.5 could not have questioned the correctness of the said Form qua booth no.37 in the election petition.

By allowing him to do so, the Tribunal has committed an error and for fortifying this submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon (1999) 9 SCC 420, paragraph-15 and 2004 (2) PLJR 581, paragraph-29. (g) The second additional argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner was that since VTR was prepared on the basis of Presiding Officers ballot paper account (Statutory Form No.17), the same can have discrepancy and therefore, it is Form- 20 (Part-I) which is to be taken as correct and not the VTR. For fortifying this submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon para-30 of decision of this Court reported in 2004 (2) PLJR 581.

Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.5 submits that none of the above grounds on which the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 08.01.2024 is sustainable in law and in fact the said impugned judgment is perfectly legal and justified to the extent that it has set aside the election of the petitioner from the post of Mukhiya of Bheteura Gram Panchayat. Patna High Court CWJC No.3937 of 2024 dt.07-07-2025

The learned counsel appearing for respondent commission in his argument has explained in detail as to how the process of election is carried out and what are the documents which are prepared as per these statutory rules.

Before I get down to examining each of the grounds on which the learned counsel for the petitioner has questioned/challenged the impugned judgment and order dated

08.01.2024 passed by the Election Tribunal, I deem it appropriate to recall some of the judicial pronouncements which have dealt with the scope of judicial review against decision of Election Tribunal in writ jurisdiction. Some of the these judgments are as follows: (i) Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, reported in (1954) 2 SCC 881. “24. Then the question is whether there are proper grounds for the issue of certiorari in the present case. There was considerable argument before us as to the character and scope of the writ of certiorari and the conditions under which it could be issued. The question has been considered by this Court in Parry & Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Employees Assn. [Parry & Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Employees Assn., (1952) 1 SCC 449 : 1952 SCR 519] , G. Veerappa Pillai v. Raman & Raman Ltd. [G. Veerappa Pillai v. Raman & Raman Ltd., (1952) 1 SCC 334 : 1952 SCR 583] , Ebrahim Aboobakar v. Custodian General Custodian General, (1952) 1 SCC 798 : 1952 SCR 696] and quite recently in T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa [T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa, (1954) 1 SCC 905 : AIR 1954 SC 440] . On these authorities, the following propositions may be taken as established: [Ebrahim Aboobakar v. Patna High Court CWJC No.3937 of 2024 dt.07-07-2025

24.1. Certiorari will be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction, as when an inferior court or tribunal acts without jurisdiction or in excess of it, or fails to exercise it.

24.2. Certiorari will also be issued when the court or tribunal acts illegally in the exercise of its undoubted jurisdiction, as when it decides without giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard, or violates the principles of natural justice.

24.3. The court issuing a writ of certiorari acts in exercise of a supervisory and not appellate jurisdiction. One consequence of this is that the Court will not review findings of fact reached by the inferior court or tribunal, even if they be erroneous. This is on the principle that a court which has jurisdiction over a subject-matter has jurisdiction to decide wrong as well as right, and when the legislature does not choose to confer a right of appeal against that decision, it would be defeating its purpose and policy, if a superior court were to rehear the case on the evidence, and substitute its own findings in certiorari. These propositions are well settled and are not in dispute.

The further question on which there has been some controversy is whether a writ can be issued, when the decision of the inferior court or tribunal is erroneous in law. This question came up for consideration in R. v. Northumberland [R. v. Compensation Appeal Tribunal, ex p Shaw Northumberland Compensation Appeal Tribunal, ex p Shaw, (1951) 1 KB 711] , and it was held that when a tribunal made a “speaking order” and the reasons given in that order in support of the decision were bad in law, certiorari could be granted. It was pointed out by Lord Goddard, C.J. that that had always been understood to be the true scope of the power. Walsall Overseers v. London & North Western Railway Co. [Walsall Overseers v. London & North Western Railway Co., (1878) LR 4 AC 30 at p. 39 (HL)] and R. v. Nat Bell Liquors Ltd. [R. v. Nat Bell Liquors Ltd., (1922) 2 AC 128] were quoted in support of this view. In Walsall Overseers v. London & North Western Railway Co. [Walsall Overseers v. London & North Western Railway Co., (1878) LR 4 AC 30 at p. 39 (HL)] , Lord Cairns, L.C. observed as follows : (AC p. 39)

… if there was upon the face of the order of the court of quarter sessions anything which showed that that order was erroneous, the Court of Queen's Bench might be asked to have the order brought into it, and to look at the order, and view it Patna High Court CWJC No.3937 of 2024 dt.07-07-2025 upon the face of it, and if the court found error upon the face of it, to put an end to its existence by quashing it….

In R. v. Nat Bell Liquors Ltd. [R. v. Nat Bell Liquors Ltd., (1922) 2 AC 128] Lord Sumner said : (AC p. 156) “… That supervision goes to two points : one is the area of the inferior jurisdiction and the qualifications and conditions of its exercise; the other is the observance of the law in the course of its exercise.” [R. v.

The decision in R. v. Northumberland Compensation Northumberland Appeal Tribunal, ex p Shaw Compensation Appeal Tribunal, ex p Shaw, (1951) 1 KB 711] was taken in appeal, and was affirmed by the Court of Appeal in R. v. Northumberland Compensation Appeal Tribunal, ex p Shaw [R. v. Northumberland Compensation Appeal Tribunal, ex p Shaw, (1952) 1 KB 338] . In laying down that an error of law was a ground for granting certiorari, the learned Judges emphasised that it must be apparent on the face of the record. Denning, L.J. who stated the power in broad and general terms observed : (KB p. 351) “It will have been seen that throughout all the cases there is one governing rule : Certiorari is only available to quash a decision for error of law if the error appears on the face of the record.” (emphasis supplied) The position was thus summed up by Morris, L.J. : (Northumberland Compensation Appeal Tribunal case [R. v. Northumberland Compensation Appeal Tribunal, ex p Shaw, (1952) 1 KB 338] , KB p. 357)

It is plain that certiorari will not issue as the cloak of an appeal in disguise. It does not lie in order to bring up an order or decision for rehearing of the issue raised in the proceedings. It exists to correct error of law where revealed on the face of an order or decision, or irregularity, or absence of, or excess of, jurisdiction where shown.

(emphasis supplied)

In G. Veerappa Pillai v. Raman & Raman Ltd. [G. Veerappa Pillai v. Raman & Raman Ltd., (1952) 1 SCC 334 : Patna High Court CWJC No.3937 of 2024 dt.07-07-2025 1952 SCR 583] , it was observed by this Court that under Article 226 the writ should be issued : (SCC p. 341, para 26)

26. … in grave cases where the subordinate tribunals or bodies or officers act wholly without jurisdiction, or in excess of it, or in violation of the principles of natural justice, or refuse to exercise a jurisdiction vested in them, or there is an error apparent on the face of the record,…

(AIR pp. 195-96, para 20) (emphasis supplied)