UMESH CHANDRA BANERJEE, J.

( 1 ) SINCE the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Syed Yakub v. K. S. Radhakrishnan, AIR 1964 SC 477, the law is well settled pertaining to the assumption of jurisdiction by the writ Court. The Supreme Court in no uncertain terms held that a writ can be issued where, in exercise of the jurisdiction conferred on it, the lower Court or the tribunal gives a decision illegally or improperly, as for example, violation of the principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court also laid down:"there is however no doubt that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is not entitled to act as an appellate Court which necessarily means that findings of fact by inferior Court or tribunal as a result of an appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in any writ proceeding. An error of law which is apparent on the face of record can be an error of fact, however, grave it may appear to be. If a finding of fact is based on no evidence or if the tribunal had admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the finding that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by

Click Here to Read the rest of this document