Certiorari under Article 226 is confined to jurisdictional error or patent record error, not reassessment of evidence in election disputes.

Certiorari under Article 226 is limited to jurisdictional error, breach of natural justice, or a manifest error apparent on the face of the record, and it cannot be used to reappreciate evidence or substitute an appellate review. In this election dispute, limitation was computed by excluding the publication date of the notice on election expenses, so the petition was treated as in time, and an amendment adding an alternative prayer did not introduce a new case. The Tribunal's findings on pleaded matters, corrupt practice, and the basis for declaring the petitioner elected were treated as supported by the record. The High Court's writ interference was therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Election Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the election petition on limitation or to permit amendment of the prayer clause. (ii) Whether the Tribunal acted in excess of jurisdiction by treating matters not specifically pleaded as proved and by declaring the petitioner elected. (iii) Whether the Tribunal's findings on commencement of polling, assistance from a Government servant, and election-expense return disclosed errors apparent on the face of the record justifying certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether the Election Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the election petition on limitation or to permit amendment of the prayer clause.

Analysis: The election petition was found to have been presented within the prescribed time under the election rules when the date of publication of the notice relating to election expenses was excluded. The amendment sought did not alter the factual averments or introduce a new case; it only added an alternative prayer, which in any event was not the basis of the Tribunal's final relief.

Conclusion: The Tribunal did not lack jurisdiction on limitation or on the amendment sought; this ground was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal acted in excess of jurisdiction by treating matters not specifically pleaded as proved and by declaring the petitioner elected.

Analysis: The findings regarding the hiring or procurement of the service bus and the role of the alleged agent were held to be within the pleadings and supported by evidence. The finding that the petitioner would have secured a majority but for the proved corrupt practice was also supported by the Tribunal's reasoning and evidence, and therefore did not amount to an excess of jurisdiction merely because another view was possible.

Conclusion: The Tribunal did not act in excess of jurisdiction in deciding those issues or in declaring the petitioner elected on that basis.

Issue (iii): Whether the Tribunal's findings on commencement of polling, assistance from a Government servant, and election-expense return disclosed errors apparent on the face of the record justifying certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Certiorari under Article 226 is supervisory and is available for jurisdictional error, violation of natural justice, or a manifest error apparent on the face of the record, not for reappreciation of evidence or correction of a mere wrong decision. Applying that test, the disputed findings were based on evidence and permissible inferences; they did not disclose patent legal error or an error apparent on the face of the record.

Conclusion: No error apparent on the face of the record was shown, and certiorari ought not to have been granted.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's writ of certiorari was unsustainable, and the Tribunal's determination was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: Certiorari under Article 226 lies only for want or excess of jurisdiction, breach of natural justice, or a manifest error apparent on the face of the record, and it cannot be used as a substitute for appeal or for reassessment of evidence.

---