Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been listed for hearing on office objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition. An objection has been raised by the Registry that the writ petition filed against the order passed by the Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh, should have been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and not under Article 226 of the Constitution.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh on 17.7.2015 allowing the review application filed by the State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the writ petition having been preferred against an order passed by the authority exercising power of judicial review but not being a civil Court, the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has rightly been filed. He would further submit that it is the right of the petitioner to elect or choose a remedy against the order of subordinate Court or Tribunal i.e. whether to file petition under Article 226 or under Article 227 or both under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, therefore, it is not in the domain of the Registry to direct the petitioner to file a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

4. I have heard Shri R.S. Marhas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri PK Bhaduri, Govt. Advocate for the State at length.

5. To dwell on the objection, distinction between the nature of authority and jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution has to be kept in mind, as has been settled by the Supreme Court. After considering plethora of precedent on the issue, the Supreme Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chandar Rai (2003) 6 SCC 675 held that Article 226 is a proceeding where the High Court exercises its original jurisdiction while a proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution is not original but only supervisory. It was held that distinction between the two jurisdictions stands almost obliterated in practise.

6. In Shalini Shyam Shetty and another v. Rajendra Shankar Patil (2010) 8 SCC 329 the Supreme Court held that Articles 226 and 227 stand on substantially different footing. Whereas a proceeding under Article 226 is an original proceeding, the jurisdiction under Article 227 is neither original nor appellate, but is for both administrative and judicial superintendence. Under Article 226, the High Court normally annuls or quashes an order or proceeding whereas in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227, the High Court, apart from annulling the proceeding, can also substitute the impugned order by the order which inferior Tribunal should have made. The jurisdiction under Article 226 is normally invoked by affected party whereas the jurisdiction under Article 227 can be exercised by the High Court suo motu as a custodian of justice.

7. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court issues a writ of certiorari, amongst other writs, to annul the proceeding or order which is challenged by the aggrieved party.

8. In Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque and others AIR 1955 SC 233, the Supreme Court formulated the principles upon which issuance of writ of certiorari is founded. Following Hari Vishnu Kamath (Supra), the Supreme Court in The Custodian of Evacuee Property, Bangalore (in all the Appeals) v. Khan Saheb Abdul Shukoor etc., AIR 1961 SC 1087 settled that (i) a writ of certiorari will be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction; (ii) a writ of certiorari will also be issued when the Court or Tribunal acts illegally in exercise of its undoubted jurisdiction; (iii) the Court which issued writ of certiorari acts in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, as distinct from appellate jurisdiction and finding of fact and (iv) a writ of certiorari can be issued to correct an error in the decision or determination if there is a manifest error apparent on the face of the record, such as when the decision is based on ign