The High Courts in India do not have the power to issue prerogative writs of certiorari or prohibition to restrain or quash proceedings in subordinate civil courts.

JAGADISAN. J.:- These are two writ petitions in the first of which, W.P. No.913 of 1961, the petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of prohibition or other appropriate writ, direction or order restraining the Court of IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court. Madras from taking possession of the business of the petitioner running in the name and style of "Oceanic Agencies" and in the second of which W.P. No.914 of 1961, the petitioner, the same as in W.P. No.913 of 1961, prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order calling for the records of the Court of the IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, in I.A. Nos.604 and 606 of 1961 in O.S. No.1603 of 1961 and to quash the orders therein dated 21-7-1961.

2. At the very outset we have to deal with the question of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue prerogative writs in the nature of prohibition and certiorari, in respect of the jurisdiction of and the orders passed by, the subordinate civil courts, as the respondents in these writ petitions urge that the petitions are not maintainable. We shall set out the facts of the case later in the judgment as they are not necessary to be considered in determining the scope and power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in relation to the proceedings of the subordinate courts.

3. These applications are quite unique and novel, and we do not wish to disguise our surprise that such applications should have been considered necessary and proper. So far as we are aware and so far as the industry and research of the eminent counsel who appeared in the case could go there has been no like instance in the annals of any High Court in India. Indeed, the applications look so exotic and the question involved for decision is of such great importance and of such wide public interest, that we heard the learned Advocate General in the matter. We are deeply indebted to him for his very able and learned arguments shedding considerable light on the obstruse legal problem that has been presented to us for solution.

4. The scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the subordinate civil court susceptible of an appeal or revision or to issue a writ of prohibition to restrain or forbear a subordinate civil judicial officer from proceeding to exercise jurisdiction in any matter before him is what requires to be determined in this case. Prior to 26-1-1950, the date of our Constitution the three High Courts in India, at Fort William, Bombay and Madras, had the right and privilege to issue the high prerogative writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto and habeas curpus as the successors of the respective Supreme Courts of Bengal. Bombay and Madras, which Supreme Courts had acquired those rights under the charters granted by the Crown in England. The Judicial Committee decided in Ryots of Garbandho v. Zamindar of Parlakimedi, 70 Ind App 129 : (AIR 1943 PC 164) that these three High Courts had no power to issue prerogative writs beyond the local limits of their respective original civil jurisdiction and the power to issue such writs within those limits was derived as successors of the Supreme Courts which had been exercising jurisdiction in the three Presidency Towns, fill they were replaced by the High Courts established under the Charter Act of 1861. The other High Courts in India had no power to issue such writs at all. As this writ jurisdiction at its inception was imported and transplanted in India on the model of the Kings Bench Division in England exercising such jurisdiction in English territory, a brief reference to the history of prerogative writs in the country of their origin may not be out of place.

5. Under the English system of Constitution of Courts the fountain head of all lawful jurisdiction invested in courts was the King himself. The basic principle of English law is that Judges