Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J.

In this batch of writ petition and writ appeals, constitutional validity of an explanation under Section 2 of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006, added by the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2013 (Amendment Act 2 of 2014) has been challenged. Impugned explanation, added by way of amendment is extracted below :

"Explanation - Where points raised in the petition before the Division Bench against the order of judgment of the single Judge were adjudicated upon, by the sub-ordinate Court, Tribunal or Quasi-Judicial Authority, as the case may be, it shall be presumed that such order or judgment by the single Judge of the High Court has been passed in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India."

W.P (C) No. 2193 of 2014 has been filed by the High Court Bar Association, by which, prayer has been made for declaring the aforesaid amendment unconstitutional.

2. In connected Writ Appeal Nos. 390, 392, 378, 355, 317 of 2014 and Writ Appeal No. 1125 of 2012, order passed by learned single Judge in respective cases has been challenged. Though in these writ appeal