What did the Court decide about certiorari under Article 226?

The Court said certiorari corrects errors of law or jurisdiction. It is not for re-checking facts like an appeal.

What is an “error apparent on the face of the record”?

There is no single test. The Court decides case by case. Here, ignoring key relevant facts amounted to a clear error of law.

Do administrative instructions under Section 43 bind tribunals?

Administrative directions guide decision-making. If a tribunal acts contrary to law by overlooking relevant factors, courts may step in.

Why did the High Court’s interference stand?

Because the tribunal’s decision rested on a legal error—important relevant facts were not considered.

K.M. Shanmugam v. S.R.V.S. (P) Ltd

K.M. Shanmugam v. S.R.V.S. (P) Ltd. AIR 1963 SC 1626

Supreme Court of India 1963 Bench: Not specified Administrative Law • Judicial Review 7 min read India

Author: Gulzar Hashmi • Published: 25 Oct 2025 • Primary: certiorari, error apparent, Article 226 • Secondary: Motor Vehicles Act 1939, administrative instructions, tribunal review

Quick Summary

The Supreme Court affirmed that High Courts can use certiorari under Article 226 to correct errors of law or jurisdiction. A court will not re-check plain facts like an appeal. Here, the transport appellate tribunal ignored relevant facts about the respondent’s presence on the route. That legal error justified the High Court’s interference. The citation is AIR 1963 SC 1626.

Issues

Can the High Court issue writ of certiorari under Article 226 for a tribunal’s factual error?
Do administrative instructions under Section 43, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, affect validity if not followed?

Rules

“Error apparent on the face of the record” is assessed case by case—no fixed formula.
Certiorari corrects errors of law, jurisdictional overreach, or breach of natural justice—not re-appreciation of facts.

Article 226, Constitution of India Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Secs. 43, 47(1)(a),(c))

Facts (Timeline)

The Regional Transport Authority, Tanjore, invited applications for a stage carriage permit for the Tanjore–Mannargudi (via Vaduvoor) route. A marking system was used: viable unit, workshop, residence, experience, special circumstances.

Appellant: 7 marks. Respondent: 4 marks. Government Order required viable unit marks to count only if other heads tied.

Without viable unit, appellant had 3; respondent had 4¼. On appeal, the tribunal recast marks: appellant 8; respondent 4, subtracting 1 as respondent’s business base was in Kumbakonam.

High Court set aside the tribunal order, noting it ignored respondent’s Mannargudi workshop and residence factors—relevant under Section 47(1)(a),(c).

Appellant moved the Supreme Court arguing: (a) no certiorari for factual error; (b) breach of administrative directions gives no writ right.

Arguments

Appellant

High Court cannot issue certiorari for mere factual mistakes.
Administrative directions under Section 43 do not create enforceable rights.

Respondent

Tribunal ignored key relevant facts (workshop/residence on route).
Decision shows an error of law affecting jurisdictional exercise.

Judgment (Held)

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s interference. Certiorari lies to correct errors of law, including when a tribunal overlooks material facts that the law requires it to consider. The Court declined to lay a fixed test for “error apparent”; it depends on the case. Here, the tribunal’s approach showed a manifest legal error.

Ratio Decidendi

Ignoring relevant, legally mandated considerations is an error of law, not a mere factual slip.
Article 226 review polices legality and procedural fairness; it does not redo factual scoring.
Administrative directions guide; breach alone may not suffice—but where the error is legal, certiorari can issue.

Why It Matters

This case is a student-friendly guide to the limits of judicial review. It shows how courts correct legal wrong turns by tribunals without becoming second appeal bodies on facts.

Key Takeaways

Certiorari targets legal and jurisdictional errors, not fresh fact-finding.
“Error apparent” is contextual; no universal checklist.
Relevant factors under the statute must be weighed; skipping them is a legal error.
Administrative directions inform decisions but do not always create enforceable rights.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “CER-TI-FACTS”

CER – Certiorari cures legal errors.
TI – There Isn’t a fixed test for error apparent.
FACTS – Ignoring facts required by law = error of law.

3-Step Hook: (1) Spot the decision-maker’s duty under law. (2) Check if key factors were ignored. (3) If yes, treat as legal error, not mere factual dispute.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Whether certiorari under Article 226 can correct the tribunal’s decision where relevant legal factors were ignored.

Rule

No fixed test for “error apparent”; certiorari addresses legal/jurisdictional error, not factual re-appraisal.

Application

Tribunal ignored respondent’s workshop/residence on route—factors the law required—creating a legal error.

Conclusion

High Court rightly issued certiorari; Supreme Court upheld the interference.

Glossary

Certiorari: A writ used by High Courts to quash orders tainted by legal error or jurisdictional fault.
Error apparent: A clear legal mistake visible on the record, judged case by case.
Relevant considerations: Factors the statute requires the authority to evaluate before deciding.