( 1 ) IN these three appeals, a common question of law arises as regards their maintainability under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 (for short, the 'act' ). The objection raised in this behalf is that they are not appeals from the Judgment or Orders passed by a single Judge in exercise of the original jurisdiction.

( 2 ) SECTION 4 of the Act, provides for an appeal from a judgment, decree, order or sentence passed by a single Judge in the exercise of the original jurisdiction under the Act or under any law for the time being in force, to a Bench consisting of two other Judges of the High Court.

( 3 ) WHAT is contended on behalf of the appellants is that the appellants had filed the petitions both 'under'articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. It was submitted that in those petitions, the appellants had challenged the orders passed by the Tribunals/ Courts on the ground that they are erroneous and not on the ground that the concerned Court/tribunal had not functioned within the limits of its authority. It was submitted that for that reason, the petitions should be treated as petitions filed under Article 226 and not under Article 227 of the Constitution. In support, heavy reliance was placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Nagendra Nath v. Commissioner of Hills Division (AIR 1958 SC 398), wherein the Supreme Court has held that the power of superintendence conferred by Art. 227 is to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the Subordinate Courts within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors; whereas, under Art. 226, the power of interference may extend to quashing an impugned order on the ground of a mistake apparent on the face of the record. The decisions in the cases of : (I) Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim, AIR 1984 SC 38; (ii) Prabodh Verma v. State of U. P. , AIR 1985 SC 167; (iii) P. Kasilingam v. PSG College of Technology (1981) 1 SCC 405; (iv) Raj Kishan Jai v. Tulsi Dass, AIR 1959 Pun 291; (v) Town House Building Co-optv. Society Ltd. v. Spl. Deputy Commissioner, ILR 1988 (1) Kar 579 were also referred to.

( 4 ) IN Waryam Singh v. Amarnath, AIR 1954 SC 215, the Supreme Court has held that the power which is available to the High Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution, is the power of judicial superintendence over the Subordinate Courts and Tribunals. This power is available apart from and independently of the provisions of other laws conferring revisional jurisdiction on the High Court. This power is intended to be exercised in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate Courts within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors e. g. , when the lower Court realises the legal position correctly, but declines to do what is expected of it to do and thereby refuse to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law, then in such a case the High Court can interfere in exercise of its power under Art. 227 of the Constitution.

( 5 ) IN Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. v. Mazdoor Sabha, (AIR 1980 SC 1896), the Supreme Court while examining the nature of the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution made the following observations:"broadly stated the principle of law is that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution is limited to holding the judicial or quasi judicial tribunals or administrative bodies exercising the quasi-judicial powers within the leading strings of legality and to see that they do not exceed their statutory jurisdiction and correctly administer the law laid down by the statute under which they act. So long as the hierarchy of officers and appellate authorities created by the statute function within their ambit the manner in which they do so can be no ground for interference. The powers of judicial supervision of the High Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution (as it then stood) are not greater than those under Art. 226 and it must be l