Nature of grievance

Want of jurisdiction: That the Court / Tribunal / Quasi judicial body / administrative authority passing the impugned Order had no jurisdiction to entertain the subject matter of the dispute; or that the Court / Tribunal / Quasi judicial body / administrative authority wrongly assumed the jurisdiction; or that the Court / Tribunal / Quasi judicial body / administrative authority usurped the jurisdiction of _____ Court / Tribunal / Quasi judicial body / administrative authority; Mistake of jurisdiction: That the condition precedents, for the exercise of jurisdiction, were not complied with; Excess of jurisdiction: That the impugned Order contains such reliefs which the Court / Tribunal / Quasi judicial body / administrative authority whilst passing it, were incompetent to grant; Failure of jurisdiction: That the Court / Tribunal / Quasi judicial body / administrative authority did not exercised the powers vested in it;

Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, including powers of superintendence of High Courts recognized under Article 227 of the Constitution, may be invoked in such cases.

There had always been confusion amongst the lawyers as whilst challenging the Orders passed by Civil Courts, Criminal Courts, Tribunals and quasi Judicial bodies, whether Writ jurisdiction is to be invoked under Article 226 or Supervisory jurisdiction of High Court under Article 227 is to be invoked. The judgment of Apex court in the case of Radhey Shyam Versus Chhabi Nath [2015] appears to have settled this controversy. The essence of the judgment is, all Orders passed by Civil and Criminal Courts may only be challenged under Art.227 of the Constitution and not under Article 226. And, all Orders passed by Tribunals or by any other Quasi judicial bodies may be challenged under Article 226, or preferably may be under Revisional Jurisdiction of High Courts under Section 115 of CPC, 1908