ORDER P.V. Dixit, C.J. 1. This Letters Patent appeal is from an order of Sen J. rejecting summarily a petition filed by the appellants under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the legality of their convictions under Sections 323 and 352, I.P.C. by the Nayaya Panchayat of Bhilai. The appellants' main contention before the learned Single Judge was that the Civil Judge, First Class, During who heard a revision petition against the decision of the Nayaya Panchayat, was not invested with any power to hear criminal revisions under the Central Provinces and Berar Panchayat Act, 1946. This was rejected by the learned Single Judge. As to other objections he took the view that as they were not urged before the Civil Judge they could not be considered in proceedings under Article 226. 2. Before us, Shri Choubey, learned counsel for the appellants, argued that the decision of the Nyaya Panchayat was without jurisdiction inasmuch as three panchas who sat while the evidence in the case was being recorded did not give the final decision, which was given by some other three panchas. It was also said that the accused were cross-examined by the complainant and the answers elicited in cross-examination influenced the decision of the Nyaya Panchayat. 3. This appeal must be dismissed. It is not open to the appellants to question the validity of their convictions on grounds which were never urged before the Nayaya Panchayat. 4. There is good authority for the proposition that in the matter of the issue of a writ of certiorari the High Court has a special jurisdiction and not ordinary jurisdiction, and that a question of jurisdiction cannot be allowed to be raised in a petition where no objection to the jurisdiction has been taken before the tribunal whose order or proceedings are being challenged. In King Vs. William (1914) I.K.B. 608, a person applied for a writ of certiorari to quash an order made by Justices on the ground that one of the Justices was an interested party and disqualified to try him. It was held in that case that the applicant was not entitled to the writ ex debito Justitiae because knowing the disqualification he had chosen to stand by during the hearing before the Justices without taking any objection. It was held in that case that the applicant was not entitled to the writ ex debito Justitiae because knowing the disqualification he had chosen to stand by during the hearing before the Justices without taking any objection. Channell J. pointed out:- "No objection was taken to the jurisdiction of the Court below at the hearing before that Court; that being so, it is the rule of this Court not to grant a writ of certiorari except upon an affidavit which negatives knowledge on the part of the applicant when he was before the Court below of the facts on which he bases his objection. That rule is established on good grounds. It applies equally whether the objection is on grounds which make the act of the Justices voidable or void." He then observed at page 614:- "A party may by his conduct preclude himself, from claiming the writ ex debito justitiae, no matter whether the proceedings which he seeks to quash are void or voidable. It they are void it is true that no conduct of his will validate them; but such considerations do not affect the principles on which the Court acts in granting or refusing the writ of certiorari. This special remedy will not be granted ex debito justitiae to a person who fails to State in his evidence on moving for the rule nisi that at the time of the proceedings impugned he was unaware of the facts on which he relies to impugn them. By failing so to do a party grieved precludes himself from the right to have the writ ex debito justitiae and reduces his position to that of one of the public having no particular interest in the matter. To such a one the granting of the writ is discretionary." The decision in King Vs. Williams (Supra) was followed by the Bombay High Court in G. M. T. Society Vs. Bombay State A.I.R. 1954 Bom. 202, where Chagla C. J. held that before a question of jurisdiction of a tribunal could be allowed to be raised on a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution objection to the jurisdiction must be taken before the tribunal whose order is being challenged. A Division Bench of this Court has also expressed a similar view in Ambaram Vs. Guman Singh 1957 JLJ 65. A Division Bench of this Court has also expressed a similar view in Ambaram Vs. Guman Singh 1957 JLJ 65. Therefore, even if the objections raised by the appellants go to the root of jurisdiction of the Nyaya Panchayat to try them, they could not be made the basis of a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution when they were not raised before the Nyaya Panchayat itself. 5. For these reasons this appeal is dismissed; but parties shall bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed.