Certiorari Jurisdiction u/A 226 Can Quash Grossly Perverse Tribunal Findings

Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A Bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar, in Shri Prakash Narain Sharma (Dead) Through LR v. M/s. Burmah Shell Co-operative Respondents Housing Society (Regd.) & Ors. (2026), dismissed an appeal against a Delhi High Court order which had exercised certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226 to set aside a Tribunal's award, holding that interference is warranted where a finding is recorded without any supporting evidence. 

What was the Background of the Case? 

• The original claimant asserted that he continued to be a member of the Respondent-cooperative housing society and was entitled to allotment of a plot. 
• The Society's records showed that the claimant had resigned from the Society in 1951, his share had been transferred to another member, and his subsequent membership application was rejected in 1952. 
• Despite this, the Registrar, acting as Arbitrator, presumed that the claimant had continued as a member and awarded the plot to his legal heir. 
• The Delhi Co-operative Tribunal upheld the arbitrator's award. 
• The Delhi High Court, exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226, set aside both the arbitrator's award and the Tribunal's order, finding that crucial documentary evidence had been ignored. 
• Aggrieved, the legal representatives of the original claimant appealed to the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the Scope of Certiorari Jurisdiction: 
  The Court held that while the scope for interference in exercise of certiorari jurisdiction remains limited, an error of law evident from the record is open to correction by the High Court, and a finding recorded without any evidence or supporting document amounts to such an error of law. 
• On the Arbitrator's Finding: 
  The Court observed that the arbitrator's conclusion that the claimant continued as a member of the Society was founded purely on assumption, with no supporting documentary basis, and held that a finding of fact based on no evidence or on mere surmise or conjecture is liable to be treated as an error of law. 
• On the Delhi High Court's Interference: 
  The Court affirmed that the High Court was fully justified in interfering with the Tribunal's order, since consideration of the relevant documents would have resulted in a decision favouring the Society, and found no fault with the High Court's exercise of certiorari jurisdiction. 
• On Equitable Considerations: 
  The Court noted that since the original claimant was never validly admitted as a member of the Society, he was not entitled to seek allotment of a plot, and that the High Court had rightly taken equitable considerations into account, particularly given that four prior claimants were also seeking allotment of the same plot. 
• Conclusion: 
  The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Delhi High Court's exercise of certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226. 

What is Article 226 of the Constitution of India? 

Background & Purpose: 

• Every High Court has the power, throughout the territories over which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including any Government, directions, orders, or writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights and for any other purpose. 
• This power may be exercised notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority, or the residence of such person, is not within those territories, provided the cause of action arises wholly or in part within the High Court's territorial jurisdiction. 
• Unlike Article 32, the power under Article 226 is not confined to Fundamental Rights alone and extends to enforcement of legal rights generally. 

Types of Writs Under Article 226: 

• Habeas Corpus — "You shall have the body"; safeguards personal liberty against unlawful detention. 
• Mandamus — "We command"; directs a public authority to perform a duty it has failed to discharge. 
• Certiorari — "To be certified"; quashes an order of a subordinate court, tribunal, or authority vitiated by jurisdictional error or error of law apparent on the record — the writ at issue in the present case. 
• Prohibition — Preventive in nature; restrains a lower court or tribunal from exceeding its jurisdiction before a final order is passed. 
• Quo Warranto — "By what authority"; questions the legal authority of a person holding a public office.