#Certiorari

The Supreme Court affirmed that a High Court may set aside arbitration awards of a cooperative society only when the award breaches statutory provisions, confirming the narrow reach of certiorari under Articles 226/227. This limits judicial interference in internal cooperative disputes, affecting societies and members alike.

The Orissa High Court ruled that writs of certiorari under Article 226 cannot be invoked to set aside orders of civil courts, including Commercial Courts, directing aggrieved parties to seek supervisory relief under Article 227. This narrows the procedural route for challenging civil-court judgments.

Karnataka High Court reinforces that administrative errors in land records-such as erroneous 'Government restricted' entries-cannot supersede established revenue records or freehold ownership rights. The Court directed authorities to rectify the Dishank portal within one month, emphasizing that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 can compel correction of such errors to protect property rights.

The Allahabad High Court ruled that judicial orders from criminal courts cannot be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution, reinforcing the Supreme Court’s decision in Neeta Singh v. State of U.P. The exclusive remedy lies under Article 227, limiting the scope of writ jurisdiction for such orders. This clarification impacts litigants seeking redressal against judicial orders, mandating reliance on supervisory jurisdiction instead.

Andhra Pradesh High Court clarifies that writ courts cannot reappreciate evidence or upset factual findings under Article 226 unless errors are manifest on record.