Art.226 - The order of tribunal which was challenged before the High court in the writ petition was dismissed by affirming the award of the Tribunal.  The contention that orders passed under Section 115 C.P.C. is not applicable to decisions rendered under Article 226 of the constitution cannot be accepted since it is likely to lead to conflicting decisions by the Subordinate Courts, Tribunals and Authorities inconsistent with decisions of the Superior Courts. [Manakad Service Co-operative Soceity Ltd. v. Manikantan Nair and others, 1986 KLT 195 = 1986 (2) ILR 73(DB), Malimath  (CJ) and Sukumaran (J)]

Production of copies of inter - Departmental communications as exhibits along with counter affidavit.  Appropriate action against concerned officers and action to arrest this tendency.  [O.P.9799 of 1985 & 6734 & 7437 of 1986 = 1987 (1) KLT SN 57, Sivaraman Nair (J)]

Misrepresentation or misstatement of facts deliberately made, intended to secure orders of the Court, being made with oblique & ulterior purposes, is conduct sufficient to deny exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 without adjudicating on the merits.  [Ajith v. Executive Engineer, KSEB, 1987 (1) KLT 272, Paripoornan (J)]

Writ petitions being filed repeatedly on the same facts and for the same relief and without disclosing the same in the writ petition- Abuse of the process of the court-part burdened with cost [ District Collector Vs. Devayani  ILR 2001(3) Ker 491  K.S.Radhakrishnan (J) & A.Lekshmi Kutty (J) 

Art.226 - Review of Writ Petition by Division Bench - Under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C., any aggrieved person may apply for review of the judgment.  The High Court was expressly excluded from the operation of Rule 2 and the object intended under Rule 1 for a decision by the same court is achieved when the application is made to the High Court.  One division Bench is not different from any other and is not a separate or distinct court itself.  No general principle of review is violated when another Division Bench hears the review application in the absence of one of the Judges who constituted the earlier Bench.  The decision now rendered by a Division Bench cannot be changed and reviewed by a single Judge and the decision of the single Judge on review cannot be treated as a decision of a Division Bench of two Judges.  [K. Krishnan & others v. The State of Kerala & others, 1985 KLJ 995 = 1985 KLT 1159 = 1985 (2) ILR 625, V. Bhaskaran Nambiar (J)]

Art.226 = A litigant should not be allowed to circumvent the normal procedure and approach a Judge directly about matters pending in Courts and seek reliefs.  A direct approach will compromise the image of the Court and undermine its dignity and prestige, thereby endangering the rule of law itself.  The Judges should not be approached on the merits of pending cases otherwise than in accordance with the procedure established by law except in extremely exceptional cases like a detenu or a bonded labourer or a person in illegal custody etc.  [Das v. Parijathamma & others, 1985 KLT 109 = 1985 (1) KLN 75 (DB), Kochu Thomman & Fathima Beevi (JJ)]