Prerogative writ jurisdiction and statutory mandamus-style relief turn on express limits and cumulative statutory conditions.

The text explains that the High Court's prerogative writ jurisdiction over prohibition and certiorari survives through the charter and later constitutional enactments unless expressly withdrawn, and that such jurisdiction may extend to bodies performing judicial or quasi-judicial functions. It further notes that Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 requires cumulative conditions, including a lawful public character and absence of an adequate ordinary legal remedy; where the applicant proceeds on a denial of the respondent's lawful authority and an ordinary suit is available, relief under the section is unavailable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to issue the writs of prohibition and certiorari against the respondent. (ii) Whether the petitioners were entitled to relief under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to issue the writs of prohibition and certiorari against the respondent.

Analysis: The jurisdiction to issue prerogative writs was traced from the charter jurisdiction of the former Supreme Court and preserved by the High Courts Act, 1861 and the later Government of India Acts. The writ of prohibition was treated as a distinct prerogative writ, complementary to certiorari, and capable of issuance against bodies exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions. Clause 55 of the charter and Section 50 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 were held not to curtail that jurisdiction by implication, since restriction of superior court jurisdiction required express words. The persons served under the High Court rules had not been made parties, and no bar arose merely because Governmental authorities were notified of the motion.

Conclusion: The High Court had jurisdiction to issue the writs of prohibition and certiorari; the objection to maintainability on that ground failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioners were entitled to relief under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877.

Analysis: Relief under Section 45 depended on cumulative conditions. The petition failed at the threshold because the application proceeded on the premise that the respondent's authority itself was unlawful, whereas the section contemplated a person lawfully clothed with a public character and bound by law to act or forbear. On that footing, the second condition was not satisfied. The Court also held that an ordinary suit was a specific and adequate legal remedy for the purposes of the section, and therefore the existence of that remedy weighed against granting the statutory order.

Conclusion: Relief under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 was not available; the refusal of that relief was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent of reopening the petition for consideration on the merits of the writs of prohibition and certiorari, while the refusal of relief under Section 45 remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: The superior court's prerogative writ jurisdiction survives unless expressly taken away, and statutory relief conditioned on cumulative requirements cannot be granted when the applicant proceeds on a denial of the legal authority that the statute assumes.

---