( 1 ) THE question of law that needs determination by us is in the following terms:"whether a Division Bench hearing writ appeal against an order of Single judge has power to remand the case to the Single Judge concerned or not ?"

( 2 ) W. P. 5540 of 1975 was rejected by a learned single Judge of this Court on 8th January 1976. Writ Appeal 35 of 1976 was preferred against that order which came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court. Without going into the merits of the case, on the points that arose for consideration, the appellate bench passed the following order :"for the reasons stated above, we set aside the order under appeal and remand W P. 5540/75 for fresh disposal in accordance with law after giving opportunity to the appellant to implead the State Government and the owner or the land. Writ appeal allowed No costs. "sd. K. Bhimiah judge sd S M. Sait, judge

( 3 ) EARLIER in this Court a question had arisen regarding the power of the division Bench to remand the case to the single Judge in Ninganna v. Narayana gowda (1983 (1) Kar. L. J. 241) Explaining the appellate jurisdiction of High court under Section 4 of the Karnataka high Court Act, 1961 and the concept of power exercisable by the learned single judge and the Division Bench in appeal while exercising the jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution, it has been observed thus : 'when an appeal is preferred under section 4 of that Act against an order of a single Judge to a Division Bench, the jurisdiction which the latter exercises is also the very same jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. On this aspect, a Full Bench of this court in State of Karnataka v. H. Krishnappa ( I. L. R. 1975 (Kar.) P. 1015 at 1049) stated as follows :"when a Division Bench entertains an appeal from a decision of a single Judge in exercise of powers under Article 226, the Division Bench in deciding such appeal, exercises the same power under that Article, whether it (the Division Bench) affirms, reverses or modifies the decision of the single judge""when the Division Bench, which hear and decide appeals from the decisions of single Judge, are also a part of the High Court and exercise the same powers under Article 226, while deciding such appeals. . . . "the writ appeal jurisdiction, therefore, cannot be compared and is not akin to, an appellate jurisdiction as ordinarily understood, which presupposes the existence of a superior Court and an inferior Court. (See Shankar ramachandra Abhyankar v. Krishnaji dattatreya-A. I. R 19/0 S. C. p 1) and no such relationship exists 'between a single Judge and a Division Bench as both exercise the jurisdiction vested in the High Court. There is no difference between a Writ Petition referred to a division Bench or a Writ Petition which comes up before a Division Bench through a writ appeal, in the matter of exercise of the jurisdiction and powers of this Court under Article 226 of the constitution. Therefore, in our view in cases where a Division Bench hearing a writ appeal against an order of single judge rejecting a Writ Petition at preliminary hearing without notice to the respondents or in a case of this type where the Writ Petition was heard and decided without impleading necessary parties as a result of which defect, the order in the Writ Petition is liable to be set aside, the writ matter have come up before the Division Bench, the most appropriate course for the Division bench is to decide the Writ Petition itself. Finding that in view of the aforesaid judgment, the Bench had no jurisdiction to remand the case for the decision by the learned single Judge, the matter was referred to a Division Bench to re hear the Writ Appeal 35 of 1976. On reference by the learned single Judge the appeal was put up for hearing before the bench. Before full dressed arguments could be advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties, an unreported Judgment of this Court in J. R. Venkategowda and Javare Gowd