Art.226 - A petition under Article 226 is not maintainable under Article 226 in as much as the Revisional Court functioning under Section 20 of the Act is a Civil Court and not a persona designate. A writ of certiorari will not issue to quash the order of a Civil Court. [Narayanan v. Rent Controller, 1988 (2) KLT 74, Viswanatha Iyer (J)]
Art.226 - It is not open to a party to raise for the first time in proceedings for the issue of certiorari to question the jurisdiction of subordinate tribunal unless he has challenged the jurisdiction before the tribunal unless he has challenged the jurisdiction before the tribunal itself. The exemption to this rule has also been recognised in circumstances where when the party satisfies the court that he was unaware of the circumstances which would have put him on an inquiry as to the lack of jurisdiction of the subordinate tribunal. The effect of this is that if the party who prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari was not aware of the lack of jurisdiction of the subordinate tribunal, he will not be barred from challenging the jurisdiction or competence of the tribunal under Article 226 of the Constitution. If the circumstances were such that the party who prays for the issue of writ of certiorari had no possibility of coming to know of lack of jurisdiction of the subordinate tribunal when the proceedings were pending before it, he will not be prevented from questioning the jurisdiction of the subordinate tribunal when the proceedings were pending before it, he will not be prevented from questioning the jurisdiction of that Tribunal before High Court. It cannot be said that in every case in which objection to jurisdiction had not been taken before tribunal, no relief should ever be granted in exercise of the discretionary powers vested in the High Courts. How far the conduct of the petitioner has disentitled him to any relief would depend on the facts of each case. If reasonable explanation is given for not taking any objection to the jurisdiction before tribunal that can be accepted by the High Court and relief would be granted by way of certiorari. [Ananthakrishnan v. Oriental Fire & General Insurance Co. Ltd., 1988 (2) KLT 159 (DB), Paripoornan & Sreedharan (JJ)]
