Certiorari for error of law on the face of a speaking order; statutory language on membership tenure construed literally.

A speaking order of a statutory authority exercising a judicial function may be quashed in certiorari under Article 226 where an error of law is apparent on the face of the record, not merely for jurisdictional error. Applying that principle, the court construed the statute and relevant Statutes to mean that a member elected or appointed to a body continues in office only so long as the statutory condition in the proviso is satisfied, without adding implied qualifications. On that reading, the Chancellor's view that the petitioner ceased to be a member after retirement was legally unsustainable, so the impugned order was quashed; mandamus failed for want of proof of intended interference.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a writ of certiorari under Article 226 could be issued to quash a speaking order of the Chancellor if the order disclosed an error of law on its face; (ii) whether the Chancellor's decision that the petitioner ceased to be a member of the Executive Council after retirement was erroneous under the governing statute and Statutes.

Issue (i): Whether a writ of certiorari under Article 226 could be issued to quash a speaking order of the Chancellor if the order disclosed an error of law on its face.

Analysis: Section 42 of the Allahabad University Act, 1921 required the Chancellor to determine whether a person had been duly elected or appointed, or was entitled to be, a member of a University body. The determination affected legal rights and therefore had to be made judicially. A speaking order of an inferior tribunal is amenable to supervisory correction where an error of law is apparent on the face of the record. The Court held that the power of certiorari is not confined to cases of jurisdictional error and extends to manifest legal error disclosed by the order itself.

Conclusion: Certiorari was maintainable against the Chancellor's speaking order if it was erroneous in law on its face.

Issue (ii): Whether the Chancellor's decision that the petitioner ceased to be a member of the Executive Council after retirement was erroneous under the governing statute and Statutes.

Analysis: The proviso to the Statute governing the Executive Council stated that a member elected or appointed as a member of a particular body, or as the holder of a particular post, would hold office only so long as he continued to be a member of that body or holder of that post. The words were treated as plain and unqualified. The petitioner continued to be a member of the Court even after retirement, and the proviso did not require continuity in the same capacity in which he had originally been elected. The Chancellor's construction was therefore inconsistent with the statutory language.

Conclusion: The Chancellor's order was erroneous in law and could not stand.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to supervisory relief, and the impugned order was quashed, while the request for mandamus failed for want of proof of intended interference.

Ratio Decidendi: A speaking order of a statutory authority exercising a judicial function may be quashed in certiorari where it discloses an error of law apparent on its face, and clear statutory language must be given its ordinary meaning without adding implied qualifications.

---