Certiorari review is limited to patent legal error; cancellation of allotment survived because no such error was shown.

Certiorari is available for jurisdictional error, illegality in the exercise of jurisdiction, or a manifest error of law apparent on the face of the record, but not for reappreciation of facts or correction of a merely wrong decision. On the materials before the Deputy Custodian General, the appellants' allotment was capable of cancellation under the rehabilitation scheme and relevant departmental instructions, and the objections raised disclosed no patent legal error. The alleged mistakes were treated as factual matters or at most non-supervisory errors of law, so interference under Article 226 was not justified and the challenge to cancellation failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the cancellation of the appellants' allotment could be quashed in certiorari on the ground of an error of law apparent on the face of the record.

Analysis: Certiorari lies for jurisdictional error, illegality in the exercise of jurisdiction, and a manifest error of law apparent on the face of the record, but not for reappreciation of facts or correction of a mere wrong decision. On the materials before the Deputy Custodian General, the allotment in favour of the appellants was capable of cancellation under the rehabilitation scheme and the relevant departmental instructions, and the objections raised by the appellants did not disclose any patent legal error. The alleged mistakes were at best matters of fact or mere errors of law that would not justify supervisory interference under Article 226.

Conclusion: The challenge to the cancellation order failed, and the appellants were not entitled to certiorari.

---