The High Court's power to issue writs under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not a substitute for the regular appellate process and cannot be used to review the findings of fact and law by a tribunal or authority.

( 1 ) HEARD learned Counsel for the appellant

( 2 ) WE propose take notice of the facts of the case for the purpose of considering whether the writ petitioner- appellant had any justification to invoke the extraordinary writ Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the constitution of India. Writ petitioner - appellant has claimed that he is the cultivating tenant of the lands in question. He has raised accordingly a proceeding before the Special Officer-cum-District Munsif for declaration of his tenancy rights and for permanent injunctior Petitioner-appellant has, in the said proceeding, filed an interlocutory appucation for temporary injunction, pending disposal of the proceeding. The special Officer-cum-District Munsif initially granted interim injunction, but vacated the same after hearing the respondents and finally disposed of the proceeding. The Petitioner-appellant preferred appeal before the District Judge, i. e. , appellate authority. The appellate authority has, however, dismissed the appeal. The petitioner-appellant has thereafter filed a petition invoking this Court s extraordinary jurisdiction seeking a direction to quash the order passed by the Special Officer-cum-Distrist Munsif as confirmed by the appellate authority. Learned single judge has declined to give any such order. The writ Petitioner-appellant has come before us complaining that on the facts and on merits he should be granted injunction and declared to be entitled to possession.

( 3 ) BEFORE we advert to the issue of jurisdiction and when an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be entertained and the limitations upon such exercise of jurisdiction which the Courts have themselves created as rules of prudence, we may state that the case of the petitioner- appellant depends upon his establishing title and proving in the proceeding before the Special Officer-cum-District Munsif that he is the tenant and that he has the occupancy in accordance with law from which he cannot be evicted. His whole case depends upon his claim that it is wrong to allege that he surrendered the tenancy and in any case, according to him, there is no surrender of tenancy by him as contemplated under Section 14 of the Tenancy Act. Confining only for the purposes of interim injunction, learned single Judge has in his order noted the specific allegations brought on the record by the respondents in his behalf in these words:"both the courts below have concurrently found that after the alleged surrender,every year public auction is being conducted by the respondents for the right to enjoy the usufruct it appears that in some years the petitioner himself was the highest bidder, that in one year the son of the petitioner was the highest bidder and in the last year i. e. , for the year 1994-95 one Padmanabha Murthy was the highest bidder for rs. 50,000/- Ex. B-4, which is a delivery receipt dt, 6-6-1994 signed by the petitioner shows that the petitioner was the highest bidder for the year 1993-94 and he re-delivered possession of the land at the end of that year. Similarly Ex. B-6 letter dt. 17-3-1994 addressed by the petitioner also reveals that he was the highest bidder for the year 1993-94. Even the documents filed by the petitioner himself i. e. . , Exs. A. 1 to A. 5 show the payment of the bid amounts by the petitioner during the years when he was the highest bidder. It is, therefore, amply established by the evidence on record that auction was being conducted every year. The respondents have stated in their counter-affidavit that in the latest year i. e. , 1994-95 one padmanabha Murthy was the highest bidder for Rs. 50,000/- and he enjoyed the usufruct for the land. It is therefore futile to contend that the petitioner is entitled for grant of temporary injunction pending disposal of the A. T. C"

( 4 ) RULE when injunction is granted has been stated variously but there is no deviation from the principle that inunction is granted only