Hon’ble J.J. Munir, J.—This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is styled as a writ petition, and, that too, a Criminal Misc. Writ Petition, with the following prayer:

“(1) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 30.11.2017 (Annexure 2) and order dated 30.3.2018 (Annexure 4) of the writ petition.

(2) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding to the respondents to permit forthwith to the petitioner to handover the rice to the concerned centre which is remain in possession.”

2. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner on being asked as to how a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution could be maintained that asks for issue of writs, orders or directions in the nature of certiorari and mandamus submits that a petition under Article 227 is also a writ petition. He submits that in any case it has been the practice of this Court of long standing to entertain writ petitions under “Articles 226/227 of the Constitution”. In his submission this petition as framed is maintainable. The submission aforesaid, though not tenable, is based on reasons that would be indicated in some detail.

4. It may be mentioned at the out set that the powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution do not postulate the power to issue writs of the kind contemplated under Article 226 of the Constitution. The said jurisdiction is a jurisdiction of superintendence over all Courts and Tribunals subordinate within the territory of the High Court to be exercised on a petition or suo motu under Article 227 of the Constitution; it can never be a writ petition. It may be styled as a Criminal Misc. Petition or Civil Misc. Petition or Civil Misc. Application or Criminal Misc. Application but never as a Writ Petition of any description. No writ as understood in the context of Article 226 can be asked for in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. This petition for the reliefs claimed under Article 227 styled as a writ petition is, therefore, ill framed to an extent that goes to the root of the matter. In its present form it is not maintainable.

5. One of the early decisions, if not the earliest, where this Court explored as to whether there was a generic difference between the power and also the remedy flowing from that power under Article 226 of the Constitution on the one hand and under Article 227 on the other, is the Full Bench decision in Aidal Singh and others v. Karan Singh and others, AIR 1957 All 414, where their Lordships after a searching review of the historical origins of the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue writs, orders or directions and the power of superintendence under Article 227 summed up the distinction, thus :

“120. To sum up, the powers contemplated by the Constitution makers under Articles 226 and 227 appear to be different. The former is described as the power to issue certain writs orders or directions. The latter is described as the power of superintendence. There are two separate sections in the Constitution next door to each other dealing with these powers. The power under Article 226 is only judicial. The power under Article 227 is both judicial and administrative. The power under Article 226 is exercised on the application of a party and for the enforcement of a legal right.

The power under Article 227 can be exercised suo motu by the Court as the custodian of all justice within the limits of its territorial jurisdiction and for the vindication of its position as such. For the exercise of the power under Article 226, the Court has framed rules. There are no such rules for the exercise of power under Article 227. Article 226 appears to be self-restrictive. On the other ha