Lokur, J. - (1.) THESE petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution are listed for admission. All of them are cases aris ing within the jurisdiqtion of the Judges sitting at Lucknow as determined under the first proviso to Article 14 of the U. P. High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948, hereinafter referred to as "the Amalgamation Order". In view of the Full Bench decision in Nirmal Dass v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, 1972 All WR (HC) 10=(AIR 1972 All 200 (FB)), a preliminary question arises whether these cases can be entertained and heard at Allahabad. The Full Bench, on a consi deration of the provisions of Article 14 of the Amalgamation Order, expressed the view inter alia, by a majority of four to one, as follows- (1) A case falling within the jurisdio tion of the Judges at Lucknow should be presented at Lucknow and not at Alla habad. (2) However, if such a case is present ed at Allahabad, the Judges at Allahabad cannot summarily dismiss it only for that Allahabad and, accordingly, these petitions reason. The" case should be returned for are properly instituted at Allahabad, filing "beiore "Qae Judges ax "WKSK.TVO-W asxi. a. K question arisea - by where the case has been mistakenly or in- expression "filed" employed in the order advertently entertained at Allahabad a dated January 15/17, 1951, and the ex-direction should be made to the High pression "presented" used in the order Court office to transmit the papers of the dated February 11, 1950, would merely case to Lucknow. mean institution or also mean hearing. Both (3) A case pertaining to the Jurisdiction the orders are relatable to the second pro of the Judges at LuckSow and presented viso to Article 14 of the Amalgamation before the Judges of Allahabad cannot be Order and the two expressions have to be decided by the Judges at Allahabad in the Pstrued context of that proviso, absence of an order contemplated by the When so construed, it appears to us that second proviso to Article 14 of the Amal- two expressions ought to be under-Kunation Order tood fended sense of institution, hearing and decision; for, the purpose of In the light of this opinion, these enabling or requiring the petitions to be petitions cannot be entertained and heard fifed at Allahabad is unquestionably for at Allahabad unless there is an order by hearing and deciding them. Any narrow the Chief Justice under the second proviso 3 iiterai interpretation of the two ex to Article 14 of the Amalgamation Order, pressions would defeat the purpose of the The learned counsel for the petitioners urg- orders ed that there is such an order, and_the Accordingly, we hold that these reads as follows: In exercise of the powers conferred by Article 14 of the United Provinces High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948 and in partial modification of the Court's Notifications Nos. 6103, dated July 26, 1948, and No. 1182/lb-39, dated Febru ary 11, 1950, as amended up to date, the Chief Justice is pleased to direct that with effect from the 15th January, 1951, all applications for issue of directions, orders or writs under Article 226 of the Constitu tion of India, arising out of matters with in the territorial jurisdiction of the Luck-now Bench, can be filed either at Lucknow or at Allahabad." Order No. 1182/lb-39, dated February 11, 1950, modified by this order, is as fol lows:- "In exercise of the powers conferred by Article 14 of the Uttar Pradesh High Court's (Amalgamation) Order, 1948, and in partial modification of the Court's noti fication No. 6103, dated July 26, 1948 as amended up to date the Chief Justice is pleased to direct that with effect from the 20th February, 1950, all 'applications for issue of directions, orders or writs under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, other than writs in the nature of habeas corpus, shall be presented at Allahabad." While the order dated January 15/17, 1951, enables a party to file a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution either at Lucknow or at Allahabad, the order dated February 11, 1950, requires all such petitions to be presented at Allaha bad. We do not propose to enter at this stage into the validity or otherwise of either order and we remain content with saying that both these orders permit filing 01 presentation of the present petitions at Order accordingly.;