Bilal Nazki, J.

When both these matters were taken up, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the appeals and, therefore, prayed that the preliminary objections be decided without going into the merits of the appeals. Therefore, the matters were heard only on preliminary objection.

2. The Joint Charity Commissioner's order dated 23rd July, 2008 has been challenged in the writ petitions. These petitions came to be heard by the learned Single Judge of this Court and the learned Single Judge allowed the petitions partly. The learned Single Judge did not quash the order of the Charity Commissioner but directed that the first paragraph of the impugned decision would read as:

"Respondent nos.1 to 9, the trustees shall not take any policy decision and shall not enter into any financial transaction with regard to the trust without prior approval of the CC till further orders.”

3. The objection taken to the maintainability of these appeals is that since the writ petitions were filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, no appeal in terms of Letters Patent would lie to a Division Bench of this Court. The position of law that no appeal would lie against the judgment of a Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to the Division Bench of the High Court has been conceded by the learned Senior Advocate Mr. Chagla, appearing on behalf of the appellants. But he contends that the petitions were filed under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India. He has drawn our attentions to the writ petitions, which are styled as the writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The main relief claimed in writ petition No.3849 of 2008 was:

"(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or a direction calling for the records and proceedings of Charity Application No.17 of 2006 pending on the files of Respondent No.17 and after going through the legality and validity of the impugned Order dated June 3, 2008 being Exhibit “A” to the Petition be pleased to set aside and quash the same to the extent stated in paragraph No.4 of the Petition.”

The main relief claimed in writ petition No.5732 of 2008 was: "(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or a Direction in exercise of its powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India calling for the records and proceedings of Charity Application No.17 of 2006 pending on the files of Respondent No.17 and after going through the legality and validity of the impugned Order dated July 23, 2008 being Exhibit “H” to the Petition be pleased to set aside and quash the same.”

4. When the writ petitions came to be heard by the learned Single Judge of this Court, an objection came to be raised about the maintainability of the writ petitions before the learned Single Judge. The Respondents therein contended that the matters have arisen wholly within the Greater Mumbai area, the Trust has its office in Mumbai, proceedings under the Act were pending before the Charity Commissioner at Mumbai and the order of the Charity Commissioner had been passed at Mumbai. It was contended that the matters arising substantially within the area of Greater Mumbai and therefore no writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be entertained on the Appellate Side of the Bombay High Court. It was contended that in terms of Rule 636 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules read with Rules 1 and 4 and Rule 18 of Chapter 17 of the Bombay High Court (Appellate Side) Rules, 1960, the Appellate Side should not have entertained the writ petitions. The learned Single Judge considered these rules and then was of the view that the grounds which were pressed into serv