MINI TRANSPORT OWNER S ASSOCIATION Vs. BHUBANESWAR MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the order dated 9-8-1996 passed by this Court in O.J.C. No. 6483 of 1995 (Bapujinagar Khudra Byabasai Assocation v. State of Orissa and others) whereby the said writ petition filed by Bapujinagar Khudra Byabasai Association (opposite party No. 3 in the present writ petition) was allowed. The petitioner of that writ petition being apprehensive of being dispossessed under the 'Eviction Drive' launched by the Bhubaneswar Municipality, had approached this Court for relief. The prayer was that as they had been in possession of different parcels of land from where they were carrying on their business and earning their livelihood, their dispossession without providing alternative site would ruin them as they would lose their business and hence their lovelihood. The Bhubaneswar Municipality on being noticed had undertaken that the persons who were to be dispossessed from the plot in question would be given alternative sites within a time-bound period on the basis of lottery system. That petition was accordingly disposed of on the basis of the undertaking given.

(2.) The case of the present petitioner is that the petitioner of the earlier writ petition had obtained that order by suppression of material facts and as such, the Court should, after perusing the record, quash the order dated 9-8-1996 passed in that writ petition. On being asked as to the process by which the order is to be quashed, the learned counsel contended that on the facts of the present case, writ of a certiorari should issue. On being further asked as to whether this Court could issue such a writ to itself, the answer was in the affirmative. And, in support of his contention, the learned counsel heavily relied on the decisions of the Apex Court in S. P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. v. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs., AIR 1994 SC 853 : (1994 AIR SCW 243), A. R. Antulay v. R. S. Nayak, AIR 1988 SC 1531 : (1988 Cri LJ 1661) and Hari Narain v. Badri Das, (1963) SCD 611 : AIR 1963 SC 1558, and a decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Charanji Lal v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana Chandigarh, AIR 1978 P and H 326.

(3.) Though we feel that the matter did not require any elaborate discussion, yet the seriousness with which the contentions were raised makes us to believe that there is still, in some quarters, a doubt about the nature and scope of certiorari and as to who can issue it and to whom. Therefore, we think it appropriate, may consider it necessary, to briefly deal with 'certiorari' - its nature, scope and objects - and for this, a reference to English decision will also become necessary because the origin of the writ can be traced back to England. But, before this, a reference may be made to the Corpus Juris Secondum (Vol. 14) at page 121 whereof it is stated that certiorari is a writ issued from a superior Court to an inferior Court or tribunal commanding the letter to send up the record of a particular case. It is further stated therein that certiorari, except in so far as it has been enlarged and extended by statute, is a writ issued from a superior Court and directed to a Court or Tribunal of inferior jurisdiction, commanding latter to certify and return to former the record in the particular case. The writ is also used, in many jurisdiction, to review not only proceedings of inferior Courts but also proceedings of inferior officers, boards, and tribunals exercising judicial or quasi judicial functions.