SANJIB BANERJEE,J. - (1.) This is an appeal from an order dated September 22, 2016 by which the appellants' petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging an appellate order passed under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act , 1971 stood dismissed. The impugned order is rather terse without any reasons being indicated in support thereof.
(2.) At the outset, it was pointed out by the appellate court to the appellants herein that the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution could not have been entertained since the appellate order impugned therein was an order passed by a judicial officer enjoying the rank of a district judge as a judge of the City Civil Court at Calcutta.
(3.) The appellants refer to a judgment reported at AIR 1964 SC 477 ( Syed Yakoob v. K. S. Radhakrishnan ). Paragraph 7 of the report is placed for the following observation therein: "7. The question about the limits of the jurisdiction of High Courts in issuing a writ of certiorari under Article 226 has been frequently considered by this Court and the true legal position in that behalf is no longer in doubt. A writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals : these are cases where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals without jurisdiction, or is in excess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdiction. A writ can similarly be issued where in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it, the Court or Tribunal acts illegally or properly, as for instance, it decides a question without giving an opportunity, be heard to the party affected by the order, or where the procedure adopted in dealing with the dispute is opposed to principles of natural justice. There is, however, no doubt that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is not entitled to act as an appellate Court..." ;