The court emphasized that certiorari is applicable to judicial acts, not ministerial acts, and that challenges to orders of inferior tribunals must be made under Article 226, not Article 227.

Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral).

Challenge, in the case at hand, has been laid to impugned orders passed under the Himachal Pradesh Public Premises Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act 1971.

2. In the first instance, the impugned judgment had been passed by the Collector, Parvati Forest Division at Shamshi, Tehsil Bhuntar, District Kullu, HP. The impugned order passed in the appeal thereto was passed by the Divisional Commissioner Mandi Division, Mandi, HP. The challenge to the aforesaid two impugned orders has been laid under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

3. Maintainability of the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is debatable/questionable.

4. The language used in Article 226 of the Constitution is very wide and the powers of all the High Courts in India extend to issuing of orders, writs or directions including writs in the nature of ‘habeas corpus, mandamus, quo warranto, prohibition and certiorari’ as may be considered necessary for enforcement of the fundamental rights and in the case of the High Courts, for other purposes as well. In view of the express provision, in our Constitution the High Court can make an order or issue a writ in the nature of certiorari in all appropriate cases and in appropriate manner, so long as the High Court adheres to the broad and fundamental principles that regulate the exercise of jurisdiction in the matter of granting such writs in English law.

5. Certiorari was meant to supervise “judicial acts”. The expression “judicial acts” includes the exercise of quasi-judicial functions by administrative bodies or other authorities or persons obliged to exercise such functions and is used in contrast with what are purely ministerial acts. “Judicial acts” are not meant to refer to judicial orders of Civil Courts.

6. A distinction has been made between judicial orders of inferior Courts of civil jurisdiction and orders of inferior tribunals or Court which are not Civil Courts and which cannot pass judicial orders. Therefore, judicial orders passed by Civil Courts of plenary jurisdiction stand on a different footing. Judicial orders of Civil Courts are not amenable to a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (Refer to 2015 (5) SCC 423, titled Radhey Shyam and Another Vs. Chabbi Nath & Others)

7. In case reported 2018 (15) SCC 356, titled Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Nandini J. Shah and Others, an order passed by an appellate authority under the relevant Public Premises Act was assailed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court. In the said case challenge under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was upheld as under the relevant Public Premises Act therein, the appellate authority by virtue of Section 9 thereof was the District Judge of the District in which the public premises was situate or such other judicial officer with the required qualifications as were specified in the concerned Act.

8. Keeping in view the aforesaid provision, it was held that the appellate authority was exercising powers therein not in his capacity as a persona designata but as a Civil Court/as a pre- existing judicial authority in the District (being a District Judge or judicial officer possessing essential qualification designated by the District Judge). Therefore, it was held that being part of the district judiciary, the judge acts as a Court and the order passed by him will be an order of the subordinate Court against which remedy under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can be availed on the matters delineated for exercise of such jurisdiction.

9. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the prima facie view that in order to challenge the impugned judicial acts, in the case at hand, a writ in the nature of certiorari under Article 226 should have been sought for.

10. Faced with the aforesaid, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present petition with liberty to file an appropriate