https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168253 Under Article 226, certiorari is a supervisory remedy confined to jurisdictional error, patent error of law, or findings unsupported by any evidence; it does not permit reappreciation of evidence or correction of mere inadequacy of proof. Applying that standard, the Tribunal's finding that the respondent had no workshop at Chidambaram was supported by material on record, including conflicting applications and transport officers' reports, so the High Court exceeded its certiorari jurisdiction in treating the finding as vitiated by non-consideration of material or irrelevant considerations. The contrary view in dissent was that the workshop claim had been ignored and the order should have been quashed. en-us Wed, 09 Oct 1963 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 02 Jul 2026 13:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168253 Under Article 226, certiorari is a supervisory remedy confined to jurisdictional error, patent error of law, or findings unsupported by any evidence; it does not permit reappreciation of evidence or correction of mere inadequacy of proof. Applying that standard, the Tribunal's finding that the respondent had no workshop at Chidambaram was supported by material on record, including conflicting applications and transport officers' reports, so the High Court exceeded its certiorari jurisdiction in treating the finding as vitiated by non-consideration of material or irrelevant considerations. The contrary view in dissent was that the workshop claim had been ignored and the order should have been quashed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 09 Oct 1963 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168253