Govinda Menon, J.- At the very outset of his arguments the learned Advocate-General raised the objection that this Court has no power to issue a writ of certiorari claimed by the petitioners, and he rested his argument on an interpretation of Article 225 and 226 of the Constitution of India. The decision of their Lordships of the Judicial Committee in Ryots of Garbandho v. Zamindar of Parlakimidi1 , which lays down that the High Court at Madras has no power to issue a writ of certiorari on an officer or official body beyond the limits of the Presidency Town of Madras except in a limited manner as regards British subjects and that the Madras Supreme Court Charter (1800), clause 8, did not confer such a power has been relied upon by the learned Advocate-General. This decision must be deemed to have overruled the earlier decisions of this Court, such as In re Nataraja Iyer 2, and the cases which followed the same, to the effect that the High Court has jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari on an officer beyond the limits of its Ordinary original jurisdiction. It has been understood both by the Bench and the Bar in this Court prior to the decision in Parlakimidi’s case1, that this

Click Here to Read the rest of this document