Certiorari jurisdiction limits interference with expert disciplinary findings where only a technical omission is shown and no legal norm is breached.

In certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226, the High Court will not act as an appellate forum or reappraise evidence, and interference is confined to cases of jurisdictional error, patent illegality, or perversity. Applying that standard, the Court found no specific statutory regulation or accounting norm violated by the Chartered Accountant's omission to state that the net worth certificate was based on provisional balance-sheet figures. The Appellate Authority's view that the lapse was merely technical was neither perverse nor contrary to law, so the finding of no professional misconduct and the setting aside of disciplinary punishment were upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 226 with the Appellate Authority's order holding that the Chartered Accountant's omission to state that the net worth certificate was based on provisional balance sheet figures did not amount to professional misconduct and setting aside the disciplinary punishment.

Analysis: The challenge was examined in the limited scope of certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226. The controlling principle is that the writ court does not act as an appellate forum, does not reappraise evidence, and interferes only where the impugned decision suffers from jurisdictional error, patent illegality, or perversity. On the facts, no specific statutory regulation or accounting standard violated by the respondent was identified. The Appellate Authority had treated the omission as a technical lapse, and the Court found no basis to hold that this view was perverse or contrary to law. The Court therefore declined to substitute its own view for that of the expert appellate forum.

Conclusion: Interference under Article 226 was not warranted, and the Appellate Authority's decision setting aside the finding of professional misconduct and the consequential punishment was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: In certiorari jurisdiction, the High Court will not interfere with an expert appellate decision unless it is shown to be perverse, without jurisdiction, or contrary to law; a technical omission, absent violation of a specific legal or professional norm, does not by itself establish professional misconduct.

---