The High Court has the authority under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash, by a writ of certiorari, an order made by a tribunal subject to the superintendence of the High Court on the ground that it is, on the face of it, erroneous in law.

( 1 ) I have had the advantage of reading the judgment of my learned brother and I entirely concur. I would, however, like to add a few words as to the meaning to be given to the words "error apparent on the face of the record". I conceive that in the English cases from which this expression has been borrowed the emphasis is not upon the word "error" but upon the words "apparent on the face of the record", that is to say that error must be such as can be ascertained from the record as it exists or should exist.

( 2 ) IN walsall Overseers v. London and North Western Rly. Co/, 1878-4 AC 30 (A), Lord Cairns, lord Chancellor, stated, at_ page 39 :

"if there was upon the face of the order of the Court of Quarter Sessions anything which shewed that that order was erroneous, the Court of Queens Bench might be asked to have the order brought into it, and to look at the order, and view it upon the face of it, and if the Court found error upon the face of it, to put an end to its existence by quashing it. "

( 3 ) IN rex v. Nat Bell Liquors, 1922-2 AC 128 (B), Lord Sumner stated, at page 155 of the report:

"the key of the question is the amount of material stated or to be stated on the record returned and brought into the superior Court. If justices state more than they are bound to state, it may, so to speak, be used against them, and out of their own mouths they may be condemned, but there is no suggestion that, apart from questions of jurisdiction, a party may state further matters to the court, either by new affidavits or by producing anything that is not on or part of the record. "

Again, at page 159 of the Report, Lord Sumner added :"when the Summary Jurisdiction Act provided, as the sufficient record of all summary convictions, a common form, which did not include any statement of the evidence for the conviction, it did not stint, the jurisdiction of the Queens Bench, or alter the actual law of certiorari. What it did was to disarm its exercise. The effect was not to make that which had been error, error no longer but to remove nearly all opportunity for its detection. The face of the record "spoke" no longer; it was the inscrutable face of a sphinx. "

The same point is clearly brought out in -- rex v. Northumberland Compensation Appeal tribunal, 1952-1 KB 338 (C), Lord Justice Denning states at page 349 of the Report:"the record had to contain everything necessary to show that the Justices had jurisdiction to deal with the matter, and it had to set out their adjudication; but it was not necessary to set out either the evidence or the reasons. If a point of law arose, however, on which either party desired the ruling of the Kings Bench, he could ask the justices to make a speaking order, that is, to make a special entry upon the record of the reasons for their judgment. The justices were not bound to do this, but they usually did so if they entertained a doubt about the point. When their reasons thus appeared on the record, the Court of Kings Bench would on certiorari inquire into their correctness, and, if the reasons were wrong, would quash the decision. "

( 4 ) THEIR Lordships of the Supreme Court have held in --

"t. C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa, 1954 sc 440 (AIR V 41) (D), in a passage quoted at length by my learned brother that the broad and fundamental principles that regulate the exercise of jurisdiction in the matter of granting writs in english law are applicable to India. "

( 5 ) IF any position as to the scope of certiorari other than that laid in the English decisions were adopted, it might well be that the High Court, having discovered an error on the record, would be bound to allow that error to subsist because it was not one of sufficient gravity to justify interference. Such a position has been negatived by this Court in --kishan Singh v. Board of revenue, U. P. at Allahabad, 1955 All 557 ( (S) AIR V 42) (E), and by the Supreme Court in - sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, Kotah, 1955 SC 425 ( (SJ AIR V 42) (F), in