Judgment 1. Registrar General. The Court cannot permit the Registry to have a dialogue with the Court. Below is the chart which shows cases of similar nature reported differently : Art. 226 Art. 227 Articles 226 and 227 1. CWJC No. 3065/2000 CWJC 2420/2001 CWJC 12498/99 2. CWJC No. 8283/2001 3. CWJC No. 8394/2001 4. CWJC No. 6579/2001 5. CWJC No. 2587/2001 6. CWJC No. 11128/2000 7. CWJC No. 2327/2001 8. CWJC No. 10790/2000 9. CWJC No. 7371/2000 10. CWJC No. 9561/2000 When a writ petition is filed, the Registry may report whether the case is within the limitation and whether the court fee paid is sufficient or if there be several petitioners whether the cause of action permits filing of one court fee or separate court fee. But, the Registry reports repeatedly at different occasions when writ petitions are fiied under Article 226 of the Constitution that lawyers must add Article 227. On the other hand, when petitions under Article 227 are filed, the Stamp Reporter also reports that the lawyer must add Article 226. 2. Clearly, it appears that the Registry has not understood the subtle difference between Articles 226 and 227. This is not a matter to take issues with counsel who are presenting the petitions. Take Article 227 first. Under this Article the High Court has superintendence over all the Courts or Tribunals throughout the territories inter-related which exercise jurisdiction. This is in addition to the prerogative writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 to issue writs mentioned in this Article. 3. No error has been committed by any lawyer if he files a petition under Article 226 to challenge a decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal and makes the decision amenable to a writ of certiorari. But, for a decision of the Supreme Court, previously, the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal could not be challenged before the High Court. In the normality of situation a writ of prohibition would be sought on petitions maintainable under Article 227 if the writ is issued to a court or a quasi judical Tribunal. May be, the use of this particular writ is not mentioned today by lawyers. The matter simply and plainly is that only for this reason, failure to mention coordinately, Article 226 or 227 would not render a petition as defective. May be, the use of this particular writ is not mentioned today by lawyers. The matter simply and plainly is that only for this reason, failure to mention coordinately, Article 226 or 227 would not render a petition as defective. Whether the petition was good under Article 226 or 227 and on the objections of the stamp reporter, which were not consistent, much time has been wasted of lawyers or the court.