Certiorari under Article 226 cannot reweigh evidence when a tribunal's factual finding is supported by some material.

Under Article 226, certiorari is a supervisory remedy confined to jurisdictional error, patent error of law, or findings unsupported by any evidence; it does not permit reappreciation of evidence or correction of mere inadequacy of proof. Applying that standard, the Tribunal's finding that the respondent had no workshop at Chidambaram was supported by material on record, including conflicting applications and transport officers' reports, so the High Court exceeded its certiorari jurisdiction in treating the finding as vitiated by non-consideration of material or irrelevant considerations. The contrary view in dissent was that the workshop claim had been ignored and the order should have been quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court could interfere by certiorari with the Transport Appellate Tribunal's finding that the respondent had no workshop at Chidambaram and, on that basis, set aside the grant of permit.

Analysis: The majority held that certiorari under Article 226 is supervisory and is available to correct jurisdictional errors, errors of law apparent on the face of the record, and findings based on no evidence, but not to reappreciate evidence or correct mere inadequacy of proof. On the record, the Tribunal's conclusion that the respondent had no workshop at Chidambaram was supported by material and could not be treated as a finding without evidence. The respondent's own assertion, the competing application, and the transport officers' reports showed a factual conflict which the Tribunal was entitled to resolve, and the High Court therefore exceeded its certiorari jurisdiction in treating the finding as vitiated by non-consideration of material or by irrelevant considerations.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in issuing certiorari, and the challenge to the Tribunal's factual finding failed.

Dissenting Opinion: Subba Rao J. held that the respondent's specific claim of a workshop at Chidambaram had been ignored by the transport authorities, that there was no real evidence rebutting it, and that the High Court rightly quashed the Tribunal's order so that the claim could be properly considered. He would have dismissed the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Article 226, certiorari does not lie to reweigh evidence or reopen a tribunal's finding of fact where there is some evidence supporting it; interference is confined to jurisdictional error, patent error of law, or a finding rendered unsustainable by absence of evidence.

---