1. Certiorari is not an appropriate remedy to review or obtain relief from the judgment, decision or action of an inferior judicatory or body rendered in the exercise of legislative, executive, or ministerial functions, as opposed to judicial or quasi-judicial powers.
Code
§§ 19-101, 19-203;
Cox v. Bd. of Commissioners of Whitfield County,
2. The acts of a county commissioner in zoning matters are not a judicial or quasi-judicial function, but a legislative function, to which the writ of certiorari will not lie.
Toomey v. Nor-
*580
wood Realty Co.,
3. This case was transferred to this court without an opinion. The transfer necessarily means that the Supreme Court adjudicated that it did not have jurisdiction of the case. Such an adjudication could mean that no constitutional questions of which the Supreme Court had jurisdiction were properly raised and also that no Federal Constitutional question was properly raised and that there was only a question of the application of the State Constitution to the question here involved because the Supreme Court had already ruled in principle that any legislative Act authorizing a review of the exercise of constitutional powers by zoning authorities is unconstitutional.
Hunt v. McCollum,
Accordingly, the superior court did not err in its judgment sustaining the motion to dismiss the petition for certiorari, which sought a review of actions in rezoning matters taken by the Commissioner of Roads and Revenues of Cobb County.
Judgment affirmed.