On a writ appeal against the order of the singe judge upholding an order passed by the Settlement Commission the Court held that the powers of the High Court to interfere with orders of the Settlement Commission are available, when the Commission has violated the procedures prescribed under the Act which includes the grant of opportunity and the obligation to consider the materials before the Commission. Similarly, when there is no nexus between the findings and the decision by the Tribunal, the order can be interfered with. These grounds are in addition to the grounds of violation of the principles of natural justice, jurisdictional errors, against the provision, bias, fraud and malice. It is also settled law that a writ of certiorari can be issued by the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India, when an administrative or a quasi-judicial authority, in the decision-making process, considers irrelevant materials by ignoring the relevant materials to draw its conclusion, the order can be interfered with. The power of the High Court which emanates from the Constitution cannot be curtailed by law made by the Legislature, such law being subordinate to the Constitution. On the facts the proceedings before the Settlement Commission were conducted at Chennai and the assessee was not provided an opportunity to put forth its case. Therefore, the authorities had conducted the proceedings against the assessee in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Vice Chairman of the Settlement Commission was the Director General, when all the actions subsequent to the search, took place against the assessee. In such circumstances, the legal maxim “nemo judex in sua causa debet esse”, came into operation. Therefore, it was completely unnecessary and beyond the scope of the Commission to find fault with the modus operandi of the assessee in arranging its tax liability, while deciding an application under section 245D. That pending the assessment proceedings relating to the assessment years from 2007-08 to 2014-15, the assessee filed the settlement application, which was rejected by the Settlement Commission on September 30, 2016, the challenge thereto was accepted by this court. The writ petition was pending when the Settlement Commission was abolished and the Interim Board was brought into operation. Various High Courts had earlier issued directions to entertain the applications for settlement and such applications were also entertained. Hence the contention of the Department that the Interim Board could not entertain the old application, could not be accepted. Upon the matter being remanded, the application filed by the assessee would have to be treated as a pending application and appropriate orders were to be passed after giving the assessee sufficient opportunity and by considering all the materials placed by them. (AY.2007-08 to 2014-15)