ORDER
P.S. Mishra, C.J.
1. Heard,
2. We have no reason to differ from the view taken by the learned single Judge insofar as his directions remitting the case to the appellate authority are concerned. We, however, do see good reasons to interfere with a finding in the impugned judgment in respect of the statement of the principle of law that an amendment in a writ petition, which has the effect of changing the cause of action cannot be granted. Learned single Judge has come to the above conclusion by following the procedure in this behalf in Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is indeed a mistake of law to define pleadings for the purpose of a writ petition as pleadings in a suit or a civil proceeding, particularly when plenary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is exercised against any order or direction of any authority or tribunal subordinate to the court for the limited purpose of judicial review. One can always bring to the notice of the Court anything done without jurisdiction, or done without any authority of law or otherwise a ground to show that the action impugned or besides the action impugned other actions in the proceeding before the court, are hit by the principle of malice in law or malice in fact, or are violative of the principles of natural justice. To the extent thus the finding recorded by the learned single Judge based on the principle of cause of action for a pleading in a civil proceeding, in our opinion, has to be set aside. In respect of other matters, however, we see no injury to the interests of the appellants herein, as the matter has been remitted to the appellate authority. If there are any questions of jurisdiction or otherwise invalidity of the order of the competent authority, which is impugned in the appeal, it is obvious the appellants can raise all such objections in the appeal.
3. With the modification in the impugned judgment as above, the appeal is dismissed.
