ORDER:---Simple objection of maintainability of this writ petition as criminal writ petition raised by Mr. Sunil Manohar, the learned Counsel for respondent No. 2, has turned out to be a complex issue in view of not so clear provisions of The Bombay High Court (Appellate Side) Rules, 1960.

2. Mr. Sunil Manohar, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 has raised preliminary objection about the maintainability of the present criminal writ petition on the ground that the reliefs sought for by the petitioner relate to enforcement of civil rights and, therefore, filing of the present criminal writ petition for enforcement of civil rights, is misconceived.

3. We heard Mr. Sunil Manohar, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2, Mr. B.G. Kulkarni, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.M. Gordey, 'A' Panel Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1, on this question.

4. During the course of arguments, since wider issue of classification of writ petitions/applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India arose, we directed the Deputy Registrar to notify to the learned members of the Bar to address this Court about classification of writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and despite the general notification to the learned members of the Bar, none of the other Advocates appeared to assist the Court though the issue of wider importance is involved in the case about classification of writ petitions.

5. Article 226 of the Constitution of India empowers the High Court to issue orders or writs including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warrants and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose. The Constitution does not provide that the jurisdiction to be exercised by the High Court under Article 226 would be Civil or Criminal. By Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the power of the High Court to have superintendence over all Courts and Tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, is maintained. If in a case pending in a Court subordinate to the High Court, substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution which may be necessary for the disposal of the case arises, it is open to the High Court, if it is so satisfied, to withdraw that case from that subordinate Court and determine the said question of law and return the case to the Court from which the case was withdrawn. Thus, Articles 226, 227 and 228 are the constitutional provisions conferring jurisdiction upon the High Courts to issue writs or orders as the circumstances warrant.

6. The Bombay High Court (Appellate Side) Rules, 1960 which regulate the business of the High Court came into force with effect from 4-2-1960. The relevant provisions in the Bombay High Court (Appellate Side) Rules, 1960 (for short, the 'Appellate Side Rules') relating to the conduct of business under Articles 226, 227 and 228 of the Constitution are provided in Chapter I, Chapter V, Chapter X, Chapter XVII and Chapter XXVI and Chapter XXVIII. In Chapter I, Rule 2, the business which could be disposed of by the Single Judge are classified as Civil and Criminal in Part I and Part II respectively. Clause (i) of Part II in Rule 2 of Chapter I of the Appellate Side Rules reads as under :---

II. Criminal

.................................

"(i) all applications under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the orders and decisions of the courts constituted under the Code of Criminal Procedure."

7. Rule 2-B of the Chapter I of the Appellate Side Rules makes a provision that all petitions/applications under Articles 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India arising out of or relating to an order of penalty or confiscation or an order in the nature thereof or an order otherwise of a penal character and passed under any special statute shall be heard and decided by a D

Click Here to Read the rest of this document