1. This writ application has been filed in the original side of this court. Mr. Dipankar Dutt, the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent No.5, while filing an application for vacating the interim order passed on 21st May, 1983 has raised a preliminary objection that no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the original side of this court, and this writ application is not, as such, maintainable. The learned Advocate for the respondent No.5 in support .of his aforesaid contention relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this court in FMAT No. 3578 of 1984, the (1) University of Calcutta v. Sri Shyamal Kumar Das & Ors, reported in 1985 Calcutta High Court Notes Volume 1 page 187 as also the decision in T.NO. 37 of 1985, the (2) University of Calcutta v. Subrata Mukhopadhyay & Ors., reported in 1986 CHN Volume I page 169.

2. This court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has framed rules relating to applications under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rule 4 of the said rules provide for filing of an application, whether it relates to a person or authority, whether exercising the civil,