Satyabrata Sinha, J. - (1.) This writ application has been filed in the original side of this court. Mr. Dipankir Dutt, the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent No. 5, while filing an application for vacating the interim order passed on 21st May, 1983 has raised a preliminary objection that no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the original side of this court, and this writ application is not, as such, maintainable. The learned Advocate for the respondent No. 5 in support of his aforesaid contention relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this court in FMAT No. 3578 of 1984, the University of Calcutta v. Sri Shyamal Kumar Das & Ors , reported in 1985 Calcutta High Court Notes Volume 1 page 187 as also the decision in T. No. 37 of 1985, the University of Calcutta v. Subrata Mukhopadhyay & Ors, reported in 1986 CHN Volume I page 169.
(2.) This court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has framed rules relating to applications under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rule 4 of the said rules provide for filing of an application, whether it relates to a person or authority, whether exercising the civil, criminal or other jurisdiction, to be dealt with by the Original Side. Similarly, rule 7 of the aforesaid rules specifies that all other applications, whether they relate to person, authority or court in exercising civil, criminal or other jurisdiction, shall be dealt with by the Appellate side of this court and the application will be marked as "Appellate Side Application". There cannot be any doubt that ordinarily all applications, the cause of action whereof arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the Original Side of this court, is to be filed in terms of rule 4 aforementioned where as all other applications are to be filed in terms of rule 7.
(3.) The Division Benches of this court in the decisions-referred to by Mr. Dutt held that an application filed in the Original Side of this court shall not be entertained if the same was entertainable on the Appellate Side and similarly an application which was entertainable on the Appellate Side should not have been entertained on the Original Side of this court.;