Jagdish Sahai, J. - (1.)THE Criminal revisions and the special appeal mentioned above have been laid before this Bench for the decision of the ques tion whether the Criminal revisions are competent to be heard at Lucknow and whether Writ Petition No. 193 of 1968 out of which special appeal no. 117 of 1969 arises was wrongly rejected by Sahgal, J. on the ground that the Luck-now Bench could not entertain it.
(2.)THE Criminal Revision No. 396 of 1966 is directed against the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow, dismissing the appeal filed by the applicant challenging his conviction under Ss. 120-B and 420, I. P. C. and the sentences awarded under those provisions by the Special Magistrate post ed at Lucknow. The special Magistrate whose court is located at Lucknow and who tried the case has been specially em powered to try all such cases within the State of Uttar Pradesh. This Court has issued notice to the applicant in Crimi nal Revision No. 396 of 1966 as to why his sentence should not be enhanced. The proceedings arising out of that notice have been separately numbered as Criminal Revision If. 316 of 1968.
Writ Petition No. 193 of 1968 was filed by Fateh Bahadur Lal who was serving in the seed store at Phool-pur in the district of Azamgarh. He was put under suspension with imme diate effect and attached to District 1971 A11./7 Til G-14 Agriculture Officer, Azamgarh. The writ petition was directed against the order of suspension. A preliminary ob jection was taken before Sahgal, J., that the Lucknow Bench had no jurisdiction to hear the writ petition inasmuch as the order of suspension was not passed by an authority who resided in the area constituting Oudh. It was contended that the petitioner was put under sus pension under the orders of the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Gorakhpur, dated 12-7-1967, while the petitioner was posted at Phoolpur in Azamgarh District. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the finding that it was not competent before the Lucknow Bench. The 'respondents to the writ peti tion were (1) State of Uttar Pradesh through the Director of Agriculture, U. P., Lucknow, (2) District Agriculture Officer, Azamgarh, and (3) Deputy Direc tor of Agriculture Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur.

(3.)THE decision of the question raised before this Full Bench depends upon the interpretation of Clause 14 of the U. P. High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948. (hereafter called as the Amalgamation Order). That provision reads:
"The new High Court, and the Judges and division courts thereof, shall sit at Allahabad or at such other places in the United Provinces as the Chief Justice may, with the approval of the Governor of the United Provinces, appoint. Provided that unless the Governor of the United Provinces with the con currence of the Chief Justice, otherwise directs, such Judges of the new High Court, not less than two in number, as the Chief Justice, may from time to time nominate, shall sit at Lucknow in order to exercise in respect of cases arising in such area in Oudh, as the Chief Jus tice may direct, the jurisdiction and power for the time being vested in the New High Court: Provided further that the Chief Jus tice may in his discretion order that any case or class of cases arising in the said area shall be heard at Allahabad."