( 1 ) THESE four appeals are in the nature of test cases fixed before this Full Bench in order to determine the question whether, under the rules of this Court, a special appeal lies to a division bench from the decision, of a Single Judge on a petition for the issue of a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution. The point was fully argued before us by the learned counsel for the appellants in each of the appeals and we are obliged to Mr. Jagdish Swarup for the assistance which he gave us, as amicus curiae by putting the other side of the case before us.

( 2 ) THE necessary facts relating to all the four appeals are stated in the order of my learned brother, Beg J. , and it ig unnecessary for me to repeat them.

( 3 ) THE question raised before us depends upon the interpretation on Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the rules of the Court. That rule reads as follows:-

" an appeal shall lie to the Court from the judgment (Not being a judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction by a court subject to the superintendence of the Court, and not being an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, and not being an order passed or made in the exercise of its power of superintendence, or in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction) of one Judge, and an appeal shall lie to the court from a judgment of one Judge made in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction by a court subject to the superintendence of the Court, where the Judge who passed the judgment declares that the case is a fit one for appeal. "

( 4 ) BOTH my learned brothers have discussed at considerable length, with reference to the relevant authorities, the meaning to be attached to the words "order passed or made in exercise of its power of superintendence". They have traced in considerable detail, the history of the provisions relating to the High Courts power of superintendence and of the power of issuing writs of the nature mentioned in Article 226. They have traced the history, and origin of writs. I cannot add anything to their, if I might say so, complete discussion of these matters. Unfortunately the conclusions which my learned brothers have drawn from their survey of the authorities are divergent and while my learned brother Agarwala J. , is of the opinion that orders of the nature of those with which we are concerned are passed in exercise of the courts power of superintendence, my learned brother, Beg J. , holds a contrary view.

( 5 ) THE first thing to be noticed is that the rules of the Court were framed after the enforcement of the Constitution. The only provision in the Constitution expressely conferring a power of superintendence upon High Courts is Article 227 which, as has been shown by my learned brothers, was the successor of earlier enactments. It conferred the power of superintendence not only in administrative matters but also in judicial matters, so that High Courts can also pass juridical orders under this Article.

( 6 ) ARTICLE 226 of the Constitution does not deal with the power of superintendence as such. Moreover, the rules provide a specific procedure for writ petition. Such petitions were to be heard, in the first instance, by a Division Bench of two judges. There could thus be no question of any special appeal in respect of cases covered by that Article and when rule 5 was being framed, no occasion arose for considering the question of appeals from orders on writ petitions. It seems to me, therefore, that when rule 5 refers to orders passed in the exercise of the Courts power of superintendence, the orders meant to be referred to were those passed under Article 227 and none other.

( 7 ) THIS construction is borne out by some of the earlier words of the same rule which are as follows:-

" an appeal shall lie to the Court from the judgment (not being a judgment passed in