The territorial jurisdiction for hearing writ petitions under Article 227 is determined by the location of the original authority, not the appellate authority, as mandated by administrative rules.

JUDGMENT :

AMIT BORKAR, J.

1. The issue that requires adjudication is, whether having regard to the statutory framework, the administrative notifications issued by the High Court, and Rule 3A of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, the present writ petition under Article 227, which arises from a dispute originating in Kolhapur District, is required to be heard and decided by the learned Single Judge at the Kolhapur Bench instead of the Court at the principal seat.

2. The facts relevant to this issue are not in dispute. The Co operative Court No. 1 at Kolhapur dismissed Dispute No. 1539 of 2006. The Maharashtra State Cooperative Appellate Court, Mumbai, Pune Bench, allowed the appeal by judgment and order dated 10 February 2022 and thereby allowed the dispute. The letter of credit which formed the basis of the dispute was opened by Respondent No. 3 at the Kolhapur branch of the petitioner Bank. Respondent No. 1 carries on business at Kolhapur, though its registered office is at Pune. All relevant transactions which gave rise to the dispute took place in Kolhapur District. A circuit bench of this Court now sits at Kolhapur under the Notifications and the amended Rules referred to by the parties. On these facts, the parties have taken different positions as to jurisdiction.

3. Mr. Gole, learned counsel for petitioner relies on the distinction between Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. It is contended that Article 226 clause (1) is concerned with the authority or person to whom the writ is to be issued, that is, the situs of the authority. Article 226 clause (2) is concerned with the place where the cause of action arises, wholly or in part. Clause (2) was brought on the statute book by the Constitution (Fifteenth Amendment) Act, 1963. According to the petitioner, this amendment imported the doctrine of cause of action into Article 226. It is further urged that Article 227 contains no such reference. Article 227 vests in every High Court the power of superintendence over all Courts and Tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. There is no express mention of cause of action. Therefore, according to the petitioner, in proceedings under Article 227, the High Court looks only at the situs of the subordinate Court or Tribunal whose order is impugned. The concept of cause of action, as understood in the Code of Civil Procedure, has no role in deciding territorial jurisdiction under Article 227. The petitioner then stresses that the present petition is expressly filed under Article 227 and not under Article 226. It is argued that once the petitioner has invoked only the supervisory jurisdiction, the tests evolved under Article 226(2) about cause of action and part of cause of action are not attracted. The High Court exercises superintendence over “all Courts and Tribunals in the State” and the only test, according to the petitioner, is the location of the Court or Tribunal which has passed the order subject to challenge.

4. The petitioner further submits that the Kolhapur seat of this Court is only a circuit bench. It is not a permanent bench established under Section 51(2) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. Being a circuit bench, it remains only a part and extension of the principal seat at Bombay. Under S