JUDGMENT 1. The main point involved in these cases is. Whether the withdrawal of recognition of the B. Ed. course to Shri Rawatpura Sarkar Sansthan (the Institute) is illegal. It arises in these writ appeals against the order of the single Judge dated 2-5-2013 disposing of Writ Petitions (C)-2874 and 2875 of 2011 filed by the Institute. THE FACTS 2. There is a trust known as Rawatpura Sarkar Lok Kalyan Trust (the Trust). It started a University in the name of Rawatpura Sarkar International University (the Rawatpura-University) at Raipur. It was a private University and was granted recognition of a deemed University by the University Grants Commission (the UGC). The Institute was affiliated to the Rawatpura-University. 3. Subsequently, the Institute got affilated to Ravishanker Shukla University (the Ravishanker-University). 4. The Institute decided to start a B. Ed. course. The Western Regional Committee (the WRC) constituted under the National Council for Teacher Education Act (the Act) granted recognition to it. Thereafter, the Institute applied for grant of recognition to start M.Ed. course. 5. The WRC not only cancelled the recognition to B. Ed. course, but dismissed the application for grant of recognition for the M.Ed. course. The appeals of the Institute against these orders were also dismissed. 6. These orders were challenged by the Institute in the two writ petitions that were disposed of by the single Judge by issuing a direction to conduct spot inspection and then take a decision. This order of the single Judge is challenged in these appeals. The WRC challenges the direction; whereas, the Institute challenges non-quashing of the impugned orders. Facts Regarding B. Ed. Course 7. The Institute had filed an application on 7-10-2003 before the WRC for grant of recognition to start B. Ed. course under NCTE (Form of Application for Recognition, the Time Limit of Submission of Application, Determination of Norms and Standards for Recognition of Teacher Education Programmes and Permission to Start New Course or Training) Regulations, 2002 (the 2002-Regulations). 8. In the application, it was mentioned that B. Ed. course was to start at rented premises at C-1, Sector-1, Devendra Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (the Raipur-premises). But, it was also mentioned in the application that the Institute will construct its own building and shift there. 9. 8. In the application, it was mentioned that B. Ed. course was to start at rented premises at C-1, Sector-1, Devendra Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (the Raipur-premises). But, it was also mentioned in the application that the Institute will construct its own building and shift there. 9. Along with the application, a sale-deed of the land was also annexed that showed that the Institute had purchased 5 acres of land in village Chouraha, Ahirwar, Tahsil Dhamdha (now Tahsil Kumhari), district Durg (the Durg-premises), over which, the building was to be constructed. 10. A team of the WRC conducted inspection of the proposed Institute on 17-5-2004. After considering its report, the WRC granted temporary recognition to the Institute on 8-7-2004 to run the B. Ed. course for the academic Session 2004-05 at the Raipur-premises on the condition that the Institute will submit the list of the staff/faculty duly approved by the Registrar of the affiliating University. 11. The WRC granted recognition on 23-11-2005 for the academic session 2005-06 on the condition that the Institute should shift to its own premises within a period of three years from the date of recognition. 12. According to the Institute, it shifted to its own building at Durg-premises in the month of December, 2005. This fact is not spcifically denied by the WRC but it is said that it was informed about this fact on 28-4-2009. 13. The WRC issued show-cause notice dated 28-4-2010 to the Institute to show-cause why the recognition for the B. Ed. course be not cancelled as it had shifted the premises without obtaining permission of the WRC under sub-clause (9) of clause 8 (clause 8(9)) of the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition, Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2005, (the 2005-Regulations). 14. The Institute filed its reply on 20-5-2010. However, a decision was taken to withdraw the recognition on 14-6-2010 on the ground that the recognition was granted to run the B. Ed. course at Raipur-premises, but it was shifted to the Durg-premises, without obtaining permission of the WRC. Thereafter, the order withdrawing the recognition was also passed on 6-7-2010. 15. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Institute filed an appeal before the appellate authority. It was dismissed on 26-4-2011, affirming the finding of the WRC. 16. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the Institute filed Writ Petition (C)-2875 of 2011. Facts Regarding M.Ed. Course 17. Thereafter, the order withdrawing the recognition was also passed on 6-7-2010. 15. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Institute filed an appeal before the appellate authority. It was dismissed on 26-4-2011, affirming the finding of the WRC. 16. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the Institute filed Writ Petition (C)-2875 of 2011. Facts Regarding M.Ed. Course 17. The Institute submitted another application on 31-10-2008 for running M.Ed. course at the Durg-premises. It is at the same place where the Institute was running its B. Ed. course after shifting. 18. Initially, the aforesaid application was rejected on 5-8-2009. However, the case was remanded back to the WRC by the Appellate Authority on 11-9-2009. 19. Later on, a team of the WRC inspected the Durg-premises, then the WRC issued a show-cause notice on 12-3-2010 to the Institute to show-cause, why the recognition for M.Ed. course be not refused on the ground that the Institute was not running any B. Ed. course at the Durg-premises. 20. The Institute filed its reply on 10-4-2010. The WRC refused to grant recognition for M.Ed. course at the Durg-premises on 5-5-2010 on the ground that the Institute was not running B. Ed. course at the Durg-premises. 21. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Institute filed an appeal before the appellate authority. It was also dismissed on 26-4-2011, affirming the finding of the WRC. 22. Against the aforesaid orders, the Institute filed Writ Petition (C) 2874 of 2011. Orders on the WPs 23. Writ Petition (C) 2874 of 2011 and Writ Petition (C) 2875 of 2011 were taken up together. The Court did not quash the orders passed by the WRC and the appellate authority. However, considering the future of the students, the single Judge, Granted liberty to the WRC to impose penalty in respect of violation of provisions of the regulations, if any; but Directed that the case of the Institute may be re-considered after making fresh spot inspection of the building at the Durg-premises. 24. The WRC has filed Writ Appeals-427 and 428 of 2013 against the direction issued by the single Judge. The Institute has filed Writ Appeals 466 and 467 of 2013 against the order of the single Judge for not quashing the impugned orders. The writ appeals are now being taken up for decision. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION 25. We have heard counsel for the parties. There is delay in filing the writ appeals. The Institute has filed Writ Appeals 466 and 467 of 2013 against the order of the single Judge for not quashing the impugned orders. The writ appeals are now being taken up for decision. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION 25. We have heard counsel for the parties. There is delay in filing the writ appeals. The counsel for the parties have no objection in condoning the delay in filing the writ appeals. The delay in filing the writ appeals is condoned and with the consent of the parties, the writ appeals are being finally decided. 26. The following points arise for determination: (i) Whether the writ appeals are maintainable; (ii) Whether the order withdrawing the recognition for B.Ed. course is illegal; (iii) Whether the refusal to grant recognition for M.Ed. course is illegal; (iv) In case answers to the aforesaid points are affirmative, then what relief should be granted to the Institute. 1st POINT: WRIT APPEALS ARE MAINTAINABLE (For some general observations and suggestions regarding this point, see Appendix-1) 27. An appeal lies to a Division Bench against the order of the single Judge under the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006 (the 2006-Act). 28. Under Section 2 of the 2006-Act, an appeal lies against the order passed by the single Judge in exercise of original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, no appeal lies against the order passed in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. 29. The counsel for the parties agree that the WRC as well as the appellate authority exercise powers under a statutory provision and also exercise quasi-judicial power. However, according to them, the single Judge had exercised the power under Article 226 of the Constitution and not under article 227 of the Constitution. 30. There is no dispute between the parties on the point that the single Judge has exercised power under Article 226 and not under Article 227 of the Constitution. Nevertheless, if the single Judge has exercised power under Article 227 then the writ appeals are not maintainable: a concession of the parties will not confer jurisdiction, if the writ appeals are not maintainable. 31. In Dr. Bhagwant Singh v. Pt. Nevertheless, if the single Judge has exercised power under Article 227 then the writ appeals are not maintainable: a concession of the parties will not confer jurisdiction, if the writ appeals are not maintainable. 31. In Dr. Bhagwant Singh v. Pt. Ravi Shankar Shukla University and another (Writ Appeal-190 of 2007, decided on 25-6-2013) and M/s. Sony India Private Limited and another v. State of Chhattisgarh and others (Writ Appeal No. 214 of 2013, decided on 18-6-2013), it has been held that a statutory authority exercising quasi-judicial power is a Tribunal within the meaning of Article 227 of the Constitution. 32. In SKS Ispat Limited v. Union of India and others (Writ Appeal-1006 of 2012, decided on 12-12-2012), it has been held that it is not the heading of the writ petition, but substance of the order passed by the single Judge is material. It is substance of the order passed that determines, whether the order was passed under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution. 33. The question is, considering the substance of the order passed by the single Judge here, whether the order is passed under Article 226 or under Article 227 of the Constitution. 34. The WPs were filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution. The reliefs prayed for, were for quashing of the impugned orders and a direction was prayed that the respondent-authorities may not withdraw the recognition granted earlier for running B.Ed. course or to grant recogntion for running M.Ed. after satisfying the compliance of the conditions laid down under the Act on inspecting the Durg-premises. 35. The second relief prayed for in the WPs is not clear. However, it appears that the Institute prayed that irrespective of the past conduct, a fresh spot inspection may be conducted to consider continuance of the B.Ed. course or grant of recognition to the M.Ed. course. 36. The single Judge did not quash the impugned orders. However, directed that: The respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner afresh after having spot inspection of the building in question having regard to the future of the students and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law, if necessary by imposing penal compensation for violation of provisions of regulations, if any, within a period of two months. The question is, is this order in substance under article 226 or 227 of the Constitution. 37. The question is, is this order in substance under article 226 or 227 of the Constitution. 37. It has been held that the power of superintendence conferred upon the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is not confined to administrative (for rulings, see below)1 superintendence only, but includes the judicial superitendence, akin to revisional or corrective jurisdiction, as well (for rulings, see below)2 and can be exrcised suo motu (for rulings, see below)3. 38. Had the single Judge quashed the impugned orders; and thereafter issue any directions, then it could be said that the single Judge has exercised power under Article 227 of the Constitution as it may be done under this Article. But in this case, the impugned orders are not set aside but a direction has been issued. Such a direction is in nature of mandamus to the WRC and can be passed under Article 226 of the Constitution and not under Article 227 of the Constitution. The writ appeals are maintainable. 2nd POINT: ORDER WITHDRAWING B.Ed. RECOGNITION ILLEGAL 39. The WRC and the appellate authority have withdrawn the recognition on the ground that the B.Ed. course was illegally shifted from the Raipur-premises to the Durg-premises, as no approval of the WRC was obtained. Is this reasoning correct? 40. The counsel for the Institute challenges the reasoning and finding. He submits that: The B.Ed. course was shifted from the Raipur-premises to the Durg-premises in December, 2005, when the building was completed at Durg; There was no necessity to take permission from the WRC as shifting was done in view of the condition for granting recognition; and The recognition for the B.Ed. cannot be withdrawn for not following a condition that was not applicable. Whereas, the counsel for the WRC supports the reasoning and finding. He submits that: The Institute should have taken permission from the WRC before shifting its B.Ed. course as mandated under clause 8(9) of the 2005-Regulations; The Institute had not taken such a permission; and The shifting of the Institute to Durg-premises was illegal. Let us consider, who is correct, but first, as to when the B.Ed. course was shifted to the Durg-premises. Shifted in December, 2005 41. The Institute had filed an application under the 2002-Regulations for grant of recognition to run B.Ed. course on 7-10-2003. Let us consider, who is correct, but first, as to when the B.Ed. course was shifted to the Durg-premises. Shifted in December, 2005 41. The Institute had filed an application under the 2002-Regulations for grant of recognition to run B.Ed. course on 7-10-2003. In the application, it was also mentioned that the course would ultimately be conducted in its own building for which the land was purchased at Durg (i.e. at the Durg-premises) but for time being, the permission was sought to start B.Ed. course temporarily, from the tenanted Raipur-premises. Along with the application, a sale-deed of the land was also annexed to show that the Institute had purchased 5 acres of land in Durg. 42. A team of the WRC had also conducted inspection on 17-5-2004 and has also found the aforesaid facts to be correct. The temporary recognition was granted to the Institute on 8-7-2004 to run the B.Ed. course for the academic session 2004-05 from the tenanted Raipur-premises. 43. Subsequently, the recognition was granted for the academic session 2005-06 on 23-11-2005 on the condition that the Institute should shift B.Ed. course in its own premises, within a period of three years from the date of recognition. 44. According to the Institute, It completed its building and thereafter shifted the B.Ed. course in the month of December, 2005; Initially, the administrative office continued at the Raipur-premises but it also shifted to the Durg-premises in the year 2009. This assertion of the Institute is not specifically denied by the WRC. However, it has been said that the information regarding shifting was supplied to the WRC for the first time on 28-4-2009. 45. The Institute was initially affiliated to the Rawatpura-University. The recognition of many private Universities including that of the Rawatpura University was cancelled by the Supreme Court in Prof. Yashpal and another v. State of Chhattisgarh and others ((2005) 5 SCC 420) : ( AIR 2005 SC 2026 ). 46. Thereafter, the Institute filed an application for affiliation to the Ravishankar-University. The Executive Council of the Ravishankar University granted temporary affiliation for the academic session 2005-06 and the order to this effect was also issued on 20-4-2006. Since then, it has been extended from time to time. 47. In the order granting affiliation by the Ravishankar-University, it is mentioned that the Institute is at the Durg-premises. A copy of the order was also sent to the WRC. Since then, it has been extended from time to time. 47. In the order granting affiliation by the Ravishankar-University, it is mentioned that the Institute is at the Durg-premises. A copy of the order was also sent to the WRC. This supports the assertion of the Institute that it had shifted its B.Ed. course earlier. As there is nothing to deny the assertion of the Institute that it shifted B.Ed. course to the Durg-premises in December, 2005, we accept it. 48. In our opinion, the Institute shifted its B.Ed. classes to the Durg-premises in December, 2005 though, the administrative office was shifted later on. 2005-Regulations Not Applicable 49. The Institute had filed an application for grant of recognition of the B.Ed. course under the 2002-Regulations. Admittedly, in the 2002-Regulations, there was no such condition of taking approval for shifting. 50. The 2005-Regulations were published in the Official Gazette on 13-1-2006 and they were enforced from that date. The Institute had already shifted its B.Ed. course to the Durg-premises before enforcement of the 2005-Regulations. Clause 8(9) of the 2005-Regulations was not applicable; and no permission for shifting was required: the recognition for the B.Ed. course could not be withdrawn on the ground that no permission was obtained. 51. Nevertheless, even if the 2005-Regulations were applicable, the impugned orders cannot be supported. They are neither legal nor proper. Even if 2005-Regulations Applicable Withdrawal illegal 52. The Institute had filed an application for grant of recognition to run B.Ed. course on 7-10-2003. A reading of this application along with the Annexures, indicates that the Institute wanted to start the B.Ed. course in a temporary tenanted premises at Raipur and thereafter shift to its own building for which it has already purchased the land at Durg. 53. The WRC itself granted recognition to the Institute on 23-11-2005, on the condition that it will shift to its own premises within three years. In case, the Institute shifted to its own premises then no fault can be found in it, as this was the condition for granting recognition. 54. It does not lie in the mouth of the WRC to grant recognition for B.Ed. course on the condition that the Institute shall shift the B.Ed. In case, the Institute shifted to its own premises then no fault can be found in it, as this was the condition for granting recognition. 54. It does not lie in the mouth of the WRC to grant recognition for B.Ed. course on the condition that the Institute shall shift the B.Ed. course to its own building and when shifting is done to fulfill the condition of the WRC, then to withdraw it on the ground that no permission was taken: it cannot blow hot and cold at the same time. Withdrawal Improper 55. It is relevant to point out that the recognition for B.Ed. course is not withdrawn on the ground of lack of infrastructure or faculty strength or any other deficiency, but on the alleged technical ground that no permission was taken to shift the premises. 56. The future of our country depends on the advancement of education. It is necessary that we open more educational institutions; provide better educational facilities rather than to act in a manner to close the educational institution on technical grounds. 57. The matter would have been different, had the Institute did not have proper infrastructure or the staff or was lacking in any other facilities as required under the law. But this is not the case here. The impugned orders were not passed on this ground but on the assumed alleged technical flaw that was not there. This was improper. 58. In view of above, the order of the WRC dated 6-7-2010 and the order of the appellate authority dated 26-4-2011 are set aside. 3rd POINT: THE ORDER REFUSING PERMISSION FOR M.Ed. COURSE ILLEGAL 59. The WRC issued a notice to the Institute to show cause as to why the recognition for M.Ed. course be not refused on the ground that no B.Ed. course was going on at the Durg-premises. 60. Thereafter, an order was passed by the WRC refusing to grant permission for M.Ed. course on the ground that the Institute was not running any B.Ed. course at the Durg-premises. This finding was upheld by the appellate authority. 61. In our opinion, the notice issued by the WRC as well as the orders passed by the WRC and the appellate authority are contrary to the stand taken by the WRC, while withdrawing the recognition for B.Ed. course; perhaps this confusion arose as the separate orders were passed. 62. This finding was upheld by the appellate authority. 61. In our opinion, the notice issued by the WRC as well as the orders passed by the WRC and the appellate authority are contrary to the stand taken by the WRC, while withdrawing the recognition for B.Ed. course; perhaps this confusion arose as the separate orders were passed. 62. It is admitted case of the WRC that on the date of the application to grant permission for M.Ed. course, B.Ed. course was running at the Durg-permises, but according to the WRC, the Institute had illegally shifted. This is different than to say that no B.Ed. course was not running. The notice as well as the order by the WRC and the appellate authority are illegal. 63. Apart from above, we have already held that there was no illegality in shifting the B.Ed. course to the Durg-premises and withdrawal of recognition of B.Ed. course is illegal. 64. In view of above, the orders of the WRC dated 5-5-2010 and the order of the appellate authority dated 26-4-2011 are illegal and are set aside. 4th POINT: RELIEF GRANTED 65. The order to withdraw recognition for B.Ed. course was passed on 6-7-2010. It was mentioned in the order that this recognition was withdrawn from the end of the academic session next to the following date of this withdrawal order. It is admitted that by this order recognition of B.Ed. course was withdrawn after the end of academic session 2011-12 i.e. from the academic session 2012-13. 66. The Institute filed writ petitions and obtained an interim order. In view of the said interim order, it has admitted the students in the academic sessions 2012-13 and 2013-14. In view of the same and the fact that we have already set aside the orders withdrawing the recognition for B.Ed. course, we direct that: (i) The WRC may conduct a fresh inspection of the premises and thereafter take appropriate decision in accordance with law with regard to B.Ed. course as well as for granting recognition for M.Ed. course. This may be done by a consolidated order so that confusion, which took place in the impugned orders, may not occur again. (ii) The recognition for the B.Ed. course will continue till the fresh order is passed by the WRC and will be subject to it. course as well as for granting recognition for M.Ed. course. This may be done by a consolidated order so that confusion, which took place in the impugned orders, may not occur again. (ii) The recognition for the B.Ed. course will continue till the fresh order is passed by the WRC and will be subject to it. A Clarification 67.Nevertheless, we clarify that: The WRC will neither be entitled to reject the recognition for B.Ed. course on the ground that the Institute had illegally shifted its premises to Durg, nor impose any penalty on the Institute for making alleged violation that does not exist; It will be open to the WRC to consider the question of withdrawing recognition for B.Ed. course or granting recognition for M.Ed. course on the ground that the infrastructure or the other facilities are not in accordance with the Regulations. CONCLUSIONS 68. Our conclusions are as follows: (a) The writ appeals are maintainable; (b) The orders withdrawing recognition for B.Ed. course and refusing to grant permission for M.Ed. course are illegal. 69. In view of our conclusions, the Writ Appeals 427 and 428 of 2013 filed by the WRC are dismissed and Writ Appeals 466 and 467 of 2013 filed by the Institute are allowed: (a) The following reliefs are granted: (i) The orders, passed by the WRC dated 6-7-2010 withdrawing recognition to the B.Ed. course and the order of the appellate authority dated 26-4-2011 affirming it, are set aside; (ii) The orders, passed by the WRC dated 5-5-2010 refusing to grant recognition to the M.Ed. course and the order of the appellate authority dated 26-4-2011 affirming it, are set aside. (b) The following directions are issued with the restrictions and liberty mentioned under the sub-heading A Clarification under heading 4th POINT: RELIEF GRANTED: (i) The WRC may conduct a fresh inspection of the premises and thereafter take appropriate decision in accordance with law with regard to B.Ed. course as well as for granting recognition for M.Ed. course. This may be done by a consolidated order so that confusion, occur again; (ii) The recognition for the B.Ed. course will continue till the fresh order is passed by the WRC and will be subject to it. Appendix-1 Some observations and suggestions regarding maintainability of appeal against the order of the single Judge passed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. 1. course will continue till the fresh order is passed by the WRC and will be subject to it. Appendix-1 Some observations and suggestions regarding maintainability of appeal against the order of the single Judge passed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. 1. While deciding the first point, we have pointed out that the Courts have held that Article 227 of the Constitution not only confers administrative superintendence but judicial superintendence akin to revisional or corrective jurisdiction as well on the High Courts. 2. It is for the aforesaid reason that the law often provides an appeal against the order of the single Judge passed in exercise of original jurisdiction but not in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. Shorter Constitution of India by Durga Das Basu (14th Edition 2009) at page-1565 correctly sums up the law as follows: The Madras, Allahabad Calcutta and Punjab High Courts have held that the jurisdiction vested in the High Court under Article 227 is a revisional jurisdiction and, accordingly, no Letters Patent Appeal is competent from an order passed by a single Judge in exercise of such jurisdiction. This view has been adopted by the Supreme Court. Some Observations 3. The Courts have also taken a view that the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 may be exercised suo motu but writ of certiorari under Article 226 may not be issued suo motu and can be issued only at the instance of the aggrieved party; though this definition of the words aggrieved party has been broadened and rigour of standing has been somewhat relaxed. Though there is no difficulty in this distinction, but there is some difficulty in the other distinction pointed out in some judgments. 4. Though there is no difficulty in this distinction, but there is some difficulty in the other distinction pointed out in some judgments. 4. In some judgments, it has been opined that: In a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution, the proceedings have to be certified and sent up by the inferior Court or Tribunal to the High Court; Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court may annul or quash the proceedings and then do no more, but in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, the High Court may not only quash or set aside the impugned proceedings, judgment or order, but it may make such directions as the facts and circumstances of the case my warrant or it may also substitute a decision of its own in place of the impugned decision; The jurisdiction under Article 227 is wider than under Article 226 of the Constitution. Perhaps, this may not be correct. 5. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court is not confined to issue prerogative writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari as exercised in England but it provides that the High Court could issue writs in the nature of these prerogative writs. This is to say that it is not confined to the procedural technicalities of those writs developed in England. 6. Apart from above, the High Court also has a jurisdiction to issue directions or writs for enforcement of any of the rights conferred under Part-III or for any other purpose. To confine it, merely to the prerogative writs in England, is to omit not only the importance of the words used and make them redundant but also to defeat the purpose of the Article itself. 7. While issuing a prerogative writ of certiorari in England, proceedings may have to be certified and sent up by the inferior Court or Tribunal to the High Court. But in India, while exercising jurisdiction in the nature of writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution, it is not in practice. This is clear from the exercise of power under Article 226 for quashing the orders of the Court-martial. 8. Under the Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court has no power of superintendence over any Court or Tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the armed forces. This is clear from the exercise of power under Article 226 for quashing the orders of the Court-martial. 8. Under the Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court has no power of superintendence over any Court or Tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the armed forces. This is provided under sub-article (4) of Article 227 (227(4)) of the Constitution. However, there is no such limitation under Article 226 of the Constitution and the High Courts have been exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the orders by such Tribunals. 9. In a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against the orders of the Tribunals constituted by or under any law relating to armed forces namely, the Court-martial, the proceedings are sent up by the Tribunal; the record is substituted by means of affidavit while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 10. Nevertheless, in a suitable case, the High Court may summon the record of the Tribunal and in that event, the record may be certified as well. But generally, record is produced by the counsel. 11. The jurisdiction under Article 226 may be wider than 227 of the Constitution and may not be confined to quashing of the order. Under Article 226, the High Court can issue any other order or direction, as the circumstances of the case may require. 12. Shorted Constitution of India by Durga Das Basu (14th Edition 2009) at page-1232 rightly sums up the law in this regard as follows:- 2. The powers of the High Court under Article 226, like those of the Supreme Court under Article 32 are not confined to the prerogative writs and the High Court, in issuing directions, orders and writs under Article 226 can travel beyond the contents of the writs which travel beyond the contents of the writs which are normally issued as writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibhition, quo-warranto and certiorari. 3. Article 226 speaks not of the English writs but of writs in the nature of those writs; consequently, there is no reason why the High Courts in India should feel oppressed by the procedural technicalities of the English writs.. 4. The Court can also mould the reliefs to meet the peculiar and complicated requirements of this country. Any technical construction of this power would defeat the purpose of the Article itself. 5. 4. The Court can also mould the reliefs to meet the peculiar and complicated requirements of this country. Any technical construction of this power would defeat the purpose of the Article itself. 5. For the same reason. (a) Under Article 226, the High Court has the power to set aside an ultra vires executive order, whether or not the writ of certiorari is attracted to it. The same principle has been applied to prohibition. (b) The Court, under Article 226, has also the power to give consequential relief, such as ordering re-payment of money realised without the authority of law or under an invalid law. (c) In proper cases, declaratory relief may be granted in a petition under Article 226, e.g., declaring same act of a statutory body to be ultra vires and like even though such relief was not available in proceeding for a prerogative writ under the English law. 6. The Court can, under Article 32 or 226, give any direction requiring affirmative action or positive activity where, under the corresponding prerogative writ, the Court could only set aside the order complained of. 13. In exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 as well as 227 of the Constitution, often a difficulty arises in deciding, when the power is exercised under Article 226 and when under Article 227. This is expressed by the Supreme Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others ( (2003) 6 SCC 675 : ( AIR 2003 SC 3044 ) (the Surya-Dev case), in different words as follows : Upon a review of decided cases and a survey of the occasions, wherein the High Courts have exercised jurisdiction to command a writ of certiorari or to exercise supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 in the given facts and circumstances in a variety of cases, it seems that the distinction between the two jurisdictions stand almost obliterated in practice. Probably, this is the reason why it has become customary with the lawyers labelling their petitions as one common under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, though such practice has been deprecated in some judicial pronouncements. 14. Probably, this is the reason why it has become customary with the lawyers labelling their petitions as one common under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, though such practice has been deprecated in some judicial pronouncements. 14. We would also like to point out that the legal proposition Judicial orders passed by a Civil Court can be examined and then corrected/reversed by the writ Court under Article 226 in exercise of its power under a writ of certiorari laid down in the Surya Dev case has been referred to the larger Bench in Radhey Shyam and another v. Chhani Nath and others (2009 AIR SCW 4006: (2009) 5 SCC 616 : (2009 (5) ALJ 244). Some Suggestions 15. An intra-Court appeal lies, if the power is exercised under Article 226 but not if the power is exercised under Article 227 of the Constitution. In case, there is difficulty in deciding whether the single Judge has exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution (as was in the present case) then there would be uncertainty regarding intra-Court appeal and this increases litigation. This should be avoided. 16. Perhaps, it would be a good idea to expressly provide in the statutory law as to when a jurisdiction can be deemed to be under Article 227 or do away with this distinction and specifically provided against what kind of orders of a single Judge no intra-Court appeal can be filed as has been done in UP, though some difficulty still remains there. 17. The other thing that may be done, is to confine the Article 227 only so far as administrative superintendence is concerned as whatever may be done under Article 227 of the Constitution by means of judicial superintendence, can very well be done under Article 226 of the Constitution. 18. So far question of exercise of suo motu powers are concerned, the rules regarding person aggrieved have been relaxed. In a case of public importance, the Courts have been taking cognizance suo motu and in any case there is no necessity of reading such limitation under Article 226 of the Constitution; after all there is no such limitation under Article 226 of the Constitution and we are not bound by the technicalities of the prerogative writs as in England. 19. This is in the realm of the legislature. We leave it here. Order accordingly.