MOHAN SWAROOP Vs. TEHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri T.S. Dabas, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.P. Mishra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the impugned recovery certificate dated 1st August, 2001, Annexure -2 to the writ petition. The petitioner took a loan from the Bank of Baroda, respondent No. 2 and the recovery certificate has been issued in that connection.

(3.) A writ of certiorariunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India lies only when there is an error of law apparent on the face of the record. A writ cannot be issued merely for fixing the instalments as that will be re -scheduling the loan. So far as writ jurisdiction is concerned, there are well settled principles on which writ jurisdiction can be exercised and it is not open to this Court to transgress those limits whenever it so pleas. This Court has to function under the law and has to observe judicial discipline by following the well settled principles for exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution.