ROY, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application by the appellant/petitioners, who were Respondents in the original proceeding (hereinafter referred to as the said petitioners), for stay of an order dated 25th September, 1984, passed in that proceeding. By such order the learned trial Judge, has directed the authorities of the said petitioners to hold a supplementary examination for those candidates who passed in Part II Examination but failed in Part I Examination and lost their chances. Such examinations may be held a long with the supplementary examination to be held for Part II candidates by changing the date of examination or by holding a separate examination as may be convenient to the University preferably within December, 1984. It is observed that if possible both the special examination for part I and part II should be held simultaneously and while making such order, the learned trial Judge, also refused to stay the operation of his order. ( 2 ) THE writ petitioners while moving this Court for a Rule stated that petitioner No. 1 Sri Shyamal Kumar Das appeared for B. Com. Part I Examination in 1979-80 but could not pass in Bengali, Economics and Accountancy Group. He sat both in Part I and Part II Examination in B. Com. In 1980 under revised regulations in old course and passed in all subjects in Part II, but could not clear out papers in which he failed in Part I Examination. It was the case of the petitioner No. 2. Sri Sujit Sinha that he also appeared for B. Com. Part I Examination under old course in 1979-80 but failed in English, Economics and Accountancy Group. Under revised regulations in old course, he sat for both Part I and Part II Examination in B. Com. In 1981 and passed in all the subjects of Part II but could not clear the back subjects in Part I and so far as petitioner No. 3 Shri Ashis Kumar Dey, it was claimed that he appeared in B. Com. Part I Examination under old course 1979-80, but could not pass in any of the subjects. He appeared under revised regulations under old course and sat both in Part I and Part II Examination of B. Com. in 1981 and passed in all the subjects in Part II but could not pass in Part I in the back subjects. Part I Examination under old course 1979-80, but could not pass in any of the subjects. He appeared under revised regulations under old course and sat both in Part I and Part II Examination of B. Com. in 1981 and passed in all the subjects in Part II but could not pass in Part I in the back subjects. ( 3 ) IT was further claimed by the petitioner that the University of Calcutta has introduced new regulations for the Degree Course Examination in B. A. , B. Sc. And B. Com. both in pass course and Honours from the Academic session of 1978. Under the new regulations, to state in short, the systems of two year's pass course and three year's honours course have been introduced. As a result of the introduction of the new regulations as aforesaid, the studies and examinations under the old courses and regulations for B. A. , B. Sc. And B-Com. of said University have come to an end long ago, save and except the relaxations made in the University regulations from time to time to hold examinations under old regulations/courses in B. A. , B. Sc. , and B. Com. to provide opportunities for students thereof and it was also claimed that the general rule under the old regulation in the respective streams of arts, science or commerce degree examinations was three chances both in part I and II. These petitioners have also claimed that they took admission in the First year B. Com. course (Old Regulation) in 1976 and under such Regulations they were due to sit in Part-I Examination in 1978 and consequently in Part II in 1979. ( 4 ) IT has been stated that the authorities of the said petitioner No. 1, notified on 31st May 1984, the Part-II of B. A. , B. Sc. and B. Com. , Special examinations under the old course, for the candidates who passed in Part-I examination and were eligible to appear at such examinations in 1982 (under old course), in terms of a Circular dated 2nd July 1981, issued by the University of Calcutta, but for some reasons or other did not appear or could not get themselves enrolled or could not pass the concerned Part-II examination in 1982, would be held in 1984 and more particularly in November 1984. It has also been claimed by the writ petitioners that if the students who had passed in Part-I in B. A. , B. Sc and B. Com. under old course can get such chance of a special examination in Part-II, the students who has passed in Part-II but have failed in Part-I in the said streams are also entitled to have chance to sit in a special examinations in Part-I. But, as no such chance has been given to the students, who have passed in Part-II, but have failed in Part-I, they are entitled to chance for such a special examinations otherwise the holding of special examination in Part-II in 1984 would be discriminatory and said special examination in Part-II require to be stopped until opportunity for special examination in Part-I, as claimed, is given. ( 5 ) IN terms of the directions as given by the learned Trial Judge, the said petitioners field their affidavit-in-opposition, to which there was no reply and the proceedings, it is stated was heard on 18th September 1984. It has also been stated that the State of West Bengal, who were impleaded as Respondent No. 4 in that proceeding, did not appear. ( 6 ) THE said petitioners in paragraph 7 of the application, have narrated their Case and the defence in the concerned proceedings, and it has been specifically averred that it was contended by and on their behalf, that this Court in its Appellate Side, had no jurisdiction to entertain, hear and decide the writ petition and in terms of or under the Rules relevant for matters under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the same, if at all, should have been moved in the Original Side. It should be kept on record that in view of the specific submissions and counter submissions made by the learned Advocates for the respective parties, on the question of maintainability or entertain ability of the proceedings in the Appellate Side of this Court, by this determination, we are required to answer and we are answering submissions on those points only and not on the other points of this stage. ( 7 ) MR. ( 7 ) MR. Das Gupta contended that since all the Respondents were and are admittedly within the Original jurisdiction of this Court and so also the location of the records, the concerned application could not be moved in the Appellate Side and as such the learned Trial Judge was not justified in entertaining the same in the Appellate Side. The fact, that all the Respondents and so also the relevant records are within the Original Jurisdiction of this Court cannot be doubted. In fact, such location of the records and the seats of the Respondents were not disputed by the answering Respondents before us. They of course claimed that the point of jurisdiction as indicated hereinbefore, was not urged or placed before the learned Trial Judge. Such submissions were vehemently opposed and contradicted by Mr. Das Gupta. Since such point as indicated above, goes to the root of the matter and is a jurisdictional fact, the same in our view, can be allowed to be agitated in the appellate proceeding, even though the same was not argued specifically Jurisdictional facts and points of law, if they arise from the admitted facts, in our view can be allowed to be agitated and urged in appeal even though they were not appropriately urged at the initial stage. Mr. Das Gupta alleged further that the learned Trial Judge has not decided such point. For the views as expressed by us, we have allowed Mr. Das Gupta to urge his preliminary point. ( 8 ) THE petitioners in their writ petition have asked for the issue of appropriate writs of mandamus and Certiorari and Mr. Das Gupta contended that because of the writs as asked for and as none of the Respondents are outside the Original jurisdiction of this Court, there is no escape from the preliminary point as urged and indicated above. The relevant Rules for consideration by us on the submissions as above, would be Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules of the High Court at Calcutta relating to Applications under Article 226 of the Constitution (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules), and they are quoted hereunder :-4. The relevant Rules for consideration by us on the submissions as above, would be Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules of the High Court at Calcutta relating to Applications under Article 226 of the Constitution (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules), and they are quoted hereunder :-4. All applications for Writs in the nature of mandamus, Prohibition and Quo Warranto, in which all the respondents reside or carry on business or have their offices situate within the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of this High Court, whether they relate to a person, or court, or authority whether exercising civil, criminal or administrative jurisdiction, shall be dealt with the Original Side and shall be marked as "original Side" applications. 5. All applications for Writ in the nature of Certiorari, wherein the records are located or are available within the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of this High Court, whether they relate to an authority or court exercising civil or criminal or other jurisdiction shall be dealt with by the Original Side and shall likewise be marked as "original Side" applications where such authority or court and any other person, having custody of the records, have their offices situate within the aforesaid ordinary original civil jurisdiction of this High Court. 6. All the other applications whether they relate to a period of authority or court exercising civil or criminal or other jurisdiction shall be dealt with by the Appellate Side of the High Court and marked as "appellate Side" applications. The said Rules as initially framed, were published in the issues of Calcutta Gazette, dated 10th November 1960, under Notification No. 7586g, dated 1st November 1960. Thereafter, on the incorporation of the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976, Rules 25a to G had to be inserted after Rule 25 in 1977. The present Article 226 (2) is the reproduction of the earlier Article 227 (1a), which was inserted by the Constitution (15th Amendment) Act, 1963 and that too with effect from 5th October 1963. ( 9 ) SINCE the concerned Rules for matters under Article 226 were framed in 1960 and Article 226 (1a) was incorporated in 1963, Mr. The present Article 226 (2) is the reproduction of the earlier Article 227 (1a), which was inserted by the Constitution (15th Amendment) Act, 1963 and that too with effect from 5th October 1963. ( 9 ) SINCE the concerned Rules for matters under Article 226 were framed in 1960 and Article 226 (1a) was incorporated in 1963, Mr. Chatterjee claimed and contended that they would have no application, the more so when, by such provisions in Article 226 (1a), which has now been renumbered as Article 226 (2), the powers under Article 226 by a High Court can be exercised with only two limitations viz. (1) such power is to be exercised throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction i. e. the writs as issued cannot travel beyond the territories of the Court issuing them and (2) the person or authority to whom such writs are issued must be within the territories of the High Court concerned and by that it would mean that the authorities against whom the writs are issued, should be amenable to the jurisdiction of the Court either by residence or location of the records, except where the cause of action arises, in whole or in part, within the territorial jurisdiction of that Court. ( 10 ) BEFORE dealing with the submissions of Mr. Chatterjee and the Cases as cited by him, we think, we should also indicate and keep on record several notifications, apart from the one as indicated hereinbefore, whereby the said Rules were amended. The incorporation by way of the amendments of Rules 25a to G after Rule 25 amongst others, was made by Notification No. 2161g dated 18th February 1977 and the same was published in the Extraordinary issues of the Calcutta Gazette on 18th February 1977. These amendments as were made in respect of this High Court's 226 Rules, were published for general information in the manner as indicated above. Thereafter, another amendment of some of the existing Rules were made and these Rules were published for general information in the Extraordinary issues of the Calcutta Gazette dated 6th August 1979 and after that, there was further amendment by way of addition of some Rules after Rule 25a and the same was published for general information in the Extraordinary issues of the Calcutta Gazette dated 29th June 1984. ( 11 ) WE must also state that we have indicated the relevant notifications whereby various amendments have been incorporated in the said Rules, as it was contended by Mr. Das Gupta, in answer to the submissions of Mr. Chatterjee that the said Rules will not apply in a case under Article 226 (1a), as they were incorporated in 1960 i. e. prior to the coming into force of the said provisions of Article 226 (1a), that those arguments would be of no avail, since the said Rules have been amended more than one after the incorporation of Article 226 (1a) in 1963 and the Full Courts which have framed the said Rules or direct subsequent amendments to the same, never felt it necessary to incorporate amendments corresponding to the incorporation of Article 226 (1a) and more particularly when, the said Rules as amended relate to applications under Article 226, they would cover all sub-articles thereunder. We feel that since the said Rules, as they stand on amendment, relate to applications under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the same would mean and include all sub-articles as incorporated thereunder, which includes Article 226 (1a) as now been renumbered as Article 226 (2 ). ( 12 ) IN support of his submission on Article 26 (1a) and his contentions that there was no bar for the learned trial Judge to deal with and entertain the writ petition in this case, even in spite of the admitted seat of all the Respondents within the Original jurisdiction of this Court and so also the location of the records in that jurisdiction, in the Appellate jurisdiction of the Court, Mr. Chatterjee made a reference to the determinations in the case of (1) The United Province Electric Supply Co. Ltd. , (in voluntary liquidation) and Ors. v. The Industrial Tribunal (III), Allahabad and Ors. , 1974 CHN 449. Chatterjee made a reference to the determinations in the case of (1) The United Province Electric Supply Co. Ltd. , (in voluntary liquidation) and Ors. v. The Industrial Tribunal (III), Allahabad and Ors. , 1974 CHN 449. That was a determination by a learned Division Bench, on a reference made by a learned Single Judge under chapter-V, Rule 3 of the Original Side Rules, on the question whether an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be maintained on the Original Side of this Court, where all the persons and authorities against whom the Rule is asked for are outside the Original jurisdiction of this High Court, but part of the cause of action was alleged to have arisen within the Original jurisdiction of this Court. The facts of that case were that an award made by respondent Industrial Tribunal (III), Allahabad and a certain certificate issued in consequence thereof (notice for recovery) were served on the petitioners in Calcutta within the original jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court. The petitioners by an application under Article 226 filed on the Original Side of this Court asked for a Rule requiring the respondents to show cause why the award and the certificate aforesaid should not be quashed and obtained the Rule. The Rule was issued by the learned Judge exercising jurisdiction on the Original Side. The petitioners contended before K. L. Roy, J, that the Original Side of this Court had jurisdiction to entertain the application as suits of part of cause of action was within jurisdiction as aforesaid. The respondents' contention was that since the respondents were all outside the jurisdiction the application should have been made on the Appellate Side of this Court in terms of Rule 6 of Rules framed by this Court for applications under Article 226. The rival contentions of the parties were referred to the Division Bench by the learned Single Judge in the manner as indicated above and the learned Division Bench answered the reference in the affirmative, holding further that the reference does involve a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution and that question is whether Article 226 (1a) of the Constitution is to be construed in the context of or with reference to the Rules framed by this Court for applications under Article 226 in 1960 before Article 226 (1a) was enacted. The reference is competent under Chapter V, Rule 3 of the Original Side Rules. Historically it is abundantly clear that when this Court framed the Rules it was concerned only with the location or residence of the respondents or the location of records to give territorial jurisdiction to the High Court. For the purpose of convenience of business the Rules were framed to provide which application should be made on the Original Side and which on the Appellate Side. The case before this Court is one under Article 226 (1a ). The Rules that were framed by this Court were Rules under Article 226 (1) and not under Article 226 (1a ). In fact, up til now no Rules under Article 226 (1a) have been framed by this Court at all. In the absence of any such rules in a case in which the cause of action either wholly or in part arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court at Calcutta, a writ petition may be filed either in the Original Side or in the Appellate Side according to the choice and convenience of the petitioner. The determination as made, in our view, would not be applicable in the facts of this case and in particular, the same would be distinguishable, as in that case, admittedly a part of the cause of action above within the Original jurisdiction of this Court, which incidentally is not the case in this proceeding and in this case, admittedly no part of the cause of action arose within the Appellate jurisdiction of this Court and in fact, the entire or whole of the cause of action arose within the Original jurisdiction of this Court. That being the position, we hold that the concerned proceedings was not maintainable in the Appellate Side of this Court. That being the position, we are of the view that Rules 4 and 5 of the said Rules as quoted hereinbefore, where a bar for this Court to entertain the application in the Appellate Side. It should also be noted that the said Rule was initially meant for application under Article 226 (1), but thereafter, the same has been made applicable or shown and mentioned to be applicable in respect of matters under Article 226 and as such, the submissions of Mr. It should also be noted that the said Rule was initially meant for application under Article 226 (1), but thereafter, the same has been made applicable or shown and mentioned to be applicable in respect of matters under Article 226 and as such, the submissions of Mr. Chatterjee on Article 226 (1a), will not hold good and so also the determination in the case of The United Province Electric Supply Co. Ltd. etc. v. The Industrial Tribunal (III), Allahabd and Ors. (supra ). We also feel that since that decision is distinguishable on facts and on the basis of the provisions with regard to the applicability of the said Rules, so, as asked for by Mr. Chatterjee, we are not required to refer the matter for further consideration before larger Bench. In fact, if such distinguishing features were not there, we would have no other alternative but to make a further reference to an appropriate Bench, under Appellate Side Rules. The determination or reference was perhaps good at the relevant time when the said Rules were specifically meant to apply in respect of the applications under Article 226 (1) but not thereafter, when they were made applicable in respect of all applications under Article 226 and by such deletion of the sub-article (1), has now made the said Rules applicable to all applications under Article 226 along with sub-articles under the same. ( 13 ) ABOVE being the position, we hold that the concerned application was not maintainable and entertain able in the Appellate Side of this Court and the same should have been moved and entertained in the Original Side. We thus direct, dismissal of the concerned proceeding in the Appellate Side and give liberty to the writ petitioners, if they so intend or are so advised, to move the application afresh before the appropriate Bench in the Original Side. ( 14 ) THUS, the preliminary point as raised succeeds and the application is allowed to the extent as indicated above. There will be no order as to costs. After the judgment was delivered Mr. Susanta Chatterjee drew our attention to a judgment in the case of (2) Krishnatosh Dasgupta v. Union of India, 1979 (2) CLJ 104 which incidentally was a judgment of a learned Single Judge. In reply Mr. There will be no order as to costs. After the judgment was delivered Mr. Susanta Chatterjee drew our attention to a judgment in the case of (2) Krishnatosh Dasgupta v. Union of India, 1979 (2) CLJ 104 which incidentally was a judgment of a learned Single Judge. In reply Mr. Dasgupta referred to a determination in the case of (3) Amal Krishna Das (C. O. No. 1509 of 1983) 87 Calwn 795. Since we feel that the earlier Division Bench Judgment is distinguishable we are not making any further determination on the judgments as cited at the Bar. Sengupta, J. : I Agree.