ORDER : P.M.MANOJ, J. The unnumbered Civil Revision Petition was posted before the Court on noting defect by the Registry. The defect noted was as follows: “CRP is filed to call for records leading to the order passed by the Commercial Appellate Authority, Kottayam in Commercial Appeal No.3/2023 dated 12.07.2024 and set aside the same by upholding the judgment of Commercial Court, Pala in CS 85/2022 dated 09.06.2023 and thereby allow the revision petition. Defect was noted to clarify whether the CRP is proper remedy.” 2. It was answered by the counsel as follows: “There is no appealable provision against the judgment of Commercial Appellate Authority as per the Commercial Court Act. Therefore as per the judgment in Nafeesa and another v. Deputy Collector , [ 2013 (4) KHC 868 ] . The only provision available is to file a CRP.” 3. This is the circumstance under which the case was posted before the Bench as unnumbered CRP. On considering the primary stage, this court was also of the opinion that CRP was not maintainable. However, upon the decision in Ayub Khan P.A. v. State of Kerala and Another [ 2012 (1) KHC 615 ], being pointed out, the Registry was directed to number the CRP, since the question of maintainability is to be decided by the Court and not by the Registry. For that purpose, a detailed hearing is required. Therefore, when the matter was posted again, Adv.G.Krishnakumar was appointed as Amicus Curiae in this case on 02.04.2024. 4. The matter was finally considered for orders with respect to maintainability of CRP against a judgment and decree by the Commercial Appellate Authority. 5. The issue involved in this case is that the respondent herein has preferred a Commercial Appeal No.3/2023 against the judgment and decree in Commercial Suit No.85/2022 of the Commercial Court, Pala before the Commercial Appellate Authority, Kottayam. Though the suit was dismissed in favour of the revision petitioner, the Appellate Authority allowed the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 09.06.2023 in CS No.85/2022. This is the circumstance in which the Civil Revision was preferred as there is a specific bar under Sec.13 of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (for short ‘the Act 2015’) with respect to a second appeal. Whereas Sec.8 of the Act 2015 bars any revision or petition against interlocutory orders. This is the circumstance in which the Civil Revision was preferred as there is a specific bar under Sec.13 of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (for short ‘the Act 2015’) with respect to a second appeal. Whereas Sec.8 of the Act 2015 bars any revision or petition against interlocutory orders. Since this Court considered the issue with respect to filing of an appeal against the judgment and decree of the Appellate Authority in a reported decision in State of Kerala and others v. Dr.Praveen Kumar T.K. [ 2024 (1) KHC 241 ] found that there is no scope for a second appeal. Therefore, according to the petitioner, what is barred under the provision is an appeal under Sec.13 and any civil revision or petition under Sec.8 of the Act 2015 against interlocutory orders. Whereas there is no specific bar for Civil Revision Petition against judgment of Commercial Appellate Authority. Hence, the remedy available is a civil revision under section 115 of CPC. 6. The learned Amicus curiae also admitted that Sec.13(2) of the Act 2015 specifically bars any appeal otherwise than under Sec.13(1) of the Act 2015 including letterspatent appeal before the High Court. Sec.13(2) contains non-obstante clause. Hence, Regular Second Appeal under Sec.100 of CPC cannot be filed challenging an appellate judgment of Commercial Appellate Authority. This position was perfectly justified in State of Kerala and others v. Dr.Praveen Kumar T.K. cited (supra). 7. Then the learned Amicus curiae raised a question with respect to remedy of an aggrieved person after the appellate order by the Commercial Appellate Authority. 8. Since there is no appeal remedy available to an aggrieved person, who suffered a judgment and decree against him from the Commercial Appellate Authority, he can approach this Court by filing either civil revision petition under Sec.115 of CPC or OP (Civil) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. The primary thrust of the argument is based on Sec.8 of the Act 2015 for the maintainability of a Civil Revision Petition.For that purpose, Sec.8 is reproduced as hereunder: “ 8. Bar against revision application or petition against an interlocutory order. 9. The primary thrust of the argument is based on Sec.8 of the Act 2015 for the maintainability of a Civil Revision Petition.For that purpose, Sec.8 is reproduced as hereunder: “ 8. Bar against revision application or petition against an interlocutory order. - Nothwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no civil revision application or petition shall be entertained against any interlocutory order of a Commercial Court, including an order on the issue of jurisdiction, and any such challenge, subject to the provisions of section 13, shall be raised only in an appeal against the decree of the Commercial Court.” 10. According to the learned Amicus curiae, the aforementioned provision deals with bar against the revision petition against interlocutory order of Commercial Court. It does not bar filing a Civil Revision Petition under Sec.115 of CPC challenging a final judgment of the Commercial Appellate Authority. Sec.115 of CPC permits the High Court to call for records of any case which has been decided by any court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate court appears - (a) to have exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or (b) to have failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or (c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. 11. According to the learned Amicus Curiae, Sec.8 specifically bars any revision or petition against (1) an interlocutory order of Commercial Court, (2) including an order on issue of jurisdiction. Thereby he contended, the bar envisaged is only with regard to an interlocutory order, thereby substantiated that the heading of the Section as well as the body specifically deals with bar against revision against an interlocutory order. Such bar is applicable only with respect to interlocutory order and cannot further extend to final judgment of appellate court. 12. The learned Amicus curiae further examined Sec.8 in the light of legislative intention by examining the heading as well as the words provided in the main provisions of Sec.8 of the Act.Whereby it is contended that by words it is very clear that the legislature intend to bar filing of CRP is only against an interlocutory order. 12. The learned Amicus curiae further examined Sec.8 in the light of legislative intention by examining the heading as well as the words provided in the main provisions of Sec.8 of the Act.Whereby it is contended that by words it is very clear that the legislature intend to bar filing of CRP is only against an interlocutory order. This view is further fortified by inviting the attention of this Court to Section 12(3) of the Act 2015, which says: “No appeal or civil revision application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, as the case may be, shall lie from an order of a Commercial Division or Commercial Court finding that it has jurisdiction to hear a commercial dispute under this act .” (emphasis supplied). 13. Thereby in clear terms it appears that such revision is barred under Sec.115 of CPC against exercising jurisdiction by the Commercial Courts. Whereas the legislature with avowed intention, bars under Secs.8 and 12(3) of the Act 2015, the entertainment of any revision by the superior courts against an interim order or appeal in interlocutory stage in a case where the Commercial Court finds that it has jurisdiction. Such wordings is provided to justify the promulgation of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 since the Act is promulgated for adjudication of commercial disputes of specified value or matters connected therewith or incidental thereto in an expeditious manner. Hence, if the trial or appeal is dragged because of civil revision or appeal, that will defeat the very intention of promulgation of the Act, 2015. However, the statute maker never intended to extend the bar under Sec.8 beyond that. 14. It is further argued that while construing or giving effect to a Statute, the Courts shall give effect to each and every word in the Statute. It is also a settled view that the Court cannot rewrite the Statute, if the words employed in the Statute are very plain and clear. Thereby the learned Amicus curiae trying to substantiate that by a literal interpretation, applying the golden rule of interpretation, as the Statute contains bar to prefer Civil Revision Petition against an interlocutory order, the said bar is limited only against the challenge of interlocutory order and nothing more. Thereby the learned Amicus curiae trying to substantiate that by a literal interpretation, applying the golden rule of interpretation, as the Statute contains bar to prefer Civil Revision Petition against an interlocutory order, the said bar is limited only against the challenge of interlocutory order and nothing more. Any view contrary to it will lead to a drastic situation that a person aggrieved by a judgment of the appellate authority under the Act, 2015 will be left without remedies which is not envisaged by legislature. 15. In that regard, learned Amicus curiae brought the attention of this Court some authoritative text with respect to settled principles of interpretation. (1) The golden rule of interpretation is that the Court shall read the Statute or provision as such. Golden rule of interpretation is literal interpretation (Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, 5 th edition page 28.) (2) Every word to be given effect while interpreting a statute or provision by giving effect to each and every word employed therein without destroying it. (Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, 5 th Edition page 36.) (3) According to Mimamsa method of interpretation, (Indian method of interpretation) one of the elementary principle is, “Sarthakya Axiom” which means every word and sentence must have some meaning and purpose (Justice Rama Jois’s Legal and Constitutional History of India, Page 447 and 448). (4) It is a fundamental rule not to be whittled down that the subject’s recourse to her Majesty’s Courts for the determination of his rights is not to be excluded except by clear words (Benion on Statutory Interpretation, 5 th edition Page 108) 16. From the aforementioned authoritative text, the learned Amicus curiae substantiate that the Court shall give effect to each and every word in the Statute and cannot rewrite the Statute if the words employed in the Statute are very plain and clear. Here, Sec.8 stands only against any Civil Revision application or petition against any interlocutory order of a Commercial Court including an order on the issue of jurisdiction. Here, Sec.8 stands only against any Civil Revision application or petition against any interlocutory order of a Commercial Court including an order on the issue of jurisdiction. This position is substantiated by a reported decision in Surendran C.K. v. Kunhimoosa [2023 (7) KHC 257] in which it was held that “The bar and the non-obstante clause incorporated under Sec.8 of the Act is pertaining to a civil revision on any interlocutory order of a commercial court and hence will not give any assistance so as to give an extended meaning or interpretation to the provisions, Sections 6 and 7 of the Act.” It was also held that ”When the language in a Statute found to be unambiguous and clear, the normal principle of interpretation is to accept the same in its plain language and the literary meaning.” 17. The learned Amicus curiae contended as well that the decision rendered by this Court in State of Kerala v. Dr.Praveen kumar T.K. cited supra has no application in this case. What was held in the said case is that no second appeal will lie against a judgment of Commercial Appellate Court as there is a specific bar under Sec.13(2) other than an appeal under Sec.13(1). Since the Commercial Appellate Authority is a Court subordinate to High Court, Second Appeal will not lie against judgment of the Appellate Court whereas there is no bar for Civil Revision Petitions under Sec.115 of CPC which permits the High Court to interfere in any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such Court where no appeal lies against such decisions. 18. Here in the case in hand, there is bar on the Second Appeal. The learned Amicus curiae is trying to convince that available remedy is filing a Civil Revision under Section 115. 19. In support of his contentions, the learned Amicus curiae brought the attention of this Court the following decisions, i.e., Gopalakrishnan Nair. v. Subhadramma [1961 KHC 128], Narayanan Nambiyar v. Ambukunju [1964 KHC 161] and M/s. I.T.I Limited v. M/s. Siemens Public Communications Network Ltd [ 2002 (5) SCC 510 ]. 20. It is further contended by the learned Amicus curiae that CPC is not completely excluded while proceeding under the Commercial Courts Act. v. Subhadramma [1961 KHC 128], Narayanan Nambiyar v. Ambukunju [1964 KHC 161] and M/s. I.T.I Limited v. M/s. Siemens Public Communications Network Ltd [ 2002 (5) SCC 510 ]. 20. It is further contended by the learned Amicus curiae that CPC is not completely excluded while proceeding under the Commercial Courts Act. Though certain provisions are amended as per chapter 6 and certain specific procedures are prescribed, except that, the provisions of CPC is equally applicable in a suit or appeal instituted under the Commercial Courts Act. 21. The preamble of CPC says that CPC is enacted to consolidate and amend the laws relating to procedure of the Courts of civil judicature. By nature, the Commercial Courts and Commercial Appellate Courts are having the genus of Civil Courts. Section 4 of the Code specifically provides that in the absence of specific provision to the contrary, the provisions of CPC shall be applicable to proceedings under any special law or local law. Hence, except the specific provisions in the Commercial Courts Act deviating from CPC, for all other purpose, the CPC is applicable. 22. On the strength of these contentions, the learned Amicus curiae is trying to substantiate that right to approach this Court under Section 115 of CPC is a statutory remedy conferred on a litigant if the order impugned is passed by a Court subordinate to the High Court and if no appeal is provided to challenge such order. 23. Going by the elements of Section 115, the power to be exercised under section 115 is under two main heads: (A) that the high court has power to interfere in a matter which has been decided by any court subordinate to such High Court where no appeal lies against such order of the subordinate courts. (B) the three conditions provided under section 115 (1) as follows: (a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or (b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or (c) to have acted in the exrcise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. 24. It is also contended that these issues have to be decided by a Court after hearing the matter in admission stage or at final hearing. 25. 24. It is also contended that these issues have to be decided by a Court after hearing the matter in admission stage or at final hearing. 25. The learned Amicus curiae has also contended that the contentions so far taken is not against the right of an aggrieved person to approach the High Court under Art.227 of the Constitution. In view of L.Chandrakumar v. Union of India [ 1997 (3) SCC 261 ] (7 Judge Bench), right to approach the High Court under Art.226 and 227 is part of the basic structure, which cannot be taken away by any other constitutional provisions. By holding so, the Apex Court held that clause 2(d) of article 323 A and clause 3(d) of Article 323 B of the Constitution which enable the Legislature to exclude the jurisdiction of the High Court is against the basic structure. So a party aggrieved by an adverse order of Subordinate Court or Tribunal can approach the High Court subject to conditions. 26. The arguments of the learned Amicus curiae is countered by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. It is contended that it is a well settled common statutory interpretation that when the language of the statute is plain and unambiguous and admits of only one meaning, no question of construction of such statute arises, for the Act speaks for itself. When a provision curbing the general jurisdiction of the court must normally receive strict interpretation unless the statute or context require otherwise. This position is contended on the strength of various decisions in Abdul Waheed Khan v. Bhawani and others (AIR 1996 SC 1718), Sachida Nand Singh and Others v. State of Bihar and others [ (1998) 2 SCC 493 ] , Jagdish Ch.Patnaik and Others v. State of Orissa and Others ( 1998 (4) SCC 456 ), Arul Nadar v. Authorised Officer, Land Reforms ( AIR 1998 SC 3288 ) and New Noble Educational Society v. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and others [ 2023 (6) SCC 649 ]. 27. It is further contended that the provisions of Commercial Court must be strictly or narrowly construed in order to attain the object of enactment i.e. speedy disposal. If any liberal interpretation is made, that will ultimately defeat the objective of the promulgation of the Act. Therefore, the Commercial Courts Acts provides only one appeal under section 13. 27. It is further contended that the provisions of Commercial Court must be strictly or narrowly construed in order to attain the object of enactment i.e. speedy disposal. If any liberal interpretation is made, that will ultimately defeat the objective of the promulgation of the Act. Therefore, the Commercial Courts Acts provides only one appeal under section 13. No further appeal is contemplated under the Act as the legislature intends finality of a litigation and expeditious disposal of the case. With that objective, the Act was promulgated. The said contention was taken based on the reported decision in Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises ltd. v. K.S. Infraspace LLP and Another [ (2020) 15 SCC 585 ] and in State of Kerala and Others v. K.Sadanandan and Another (Commercial Appeal No.5/2024 dated 25.06.2024). 28. In response to the contentions with respect to Section115, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that only jurisdictional errors can be corrected exercising the power of the high court under Sec.115 of the CPC. To substantiate his contention, the counsel relied on the decisions in Deep Industries Limited v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation and Others [ (2020) 15 SCC 706 ] and in Frost International Limited v. Milan Developers and Builders (P) Limited and Others [ 2022 (8) SCC 633 ]. 29. It is also contended that there is no hindrance in converting the Civil Revision Petition to Original Petition under Art.227 and vice-versa. Such contention is raised on the premise that the respondent’s contention that civil revision petition is not the remedy where there is alternative remedy available under the statute. The remedy available is to approach the high court under Art. 227 if the person is aggrieved by the order of a subordinate forum. To support this contention, the counsel relied on some judgments of this Court in CRP No.59 of 2012 dated 19.09.2012 and OP(C) No.3031/2011 dated 13.10.2011. 30. According to the respondent, when a decree is passed under Section 2(2) of the CPC, only an appeal is maintainable against the said decree and not a civil revision under section 115 of CPC. In the case in hand, judgment and decree passed by the Commercial Appellate Court (District Court) is a final determination of the rights of the parties on all the issues which arose the suit and as such only an appeal is maintainable not a revision under section 115. In the case in hand, judgment and decree passed by the Commercial Appellate Court (District Court) is a final determination of the rights of the parties on all the issues which arose the suit and as such only an appeal is maintainable not a revision under section 115. The decisions in Rishabh Chand Jain and others v. Ginesh Chandran Jain [ (2016) 6 SCC 675 ] and in Rahimal Bathu and Others v. Ashiyal Beevi [2023 SCC OnLine SC 1226] are relied on by the respondent to substantiate the above contentions. 31. When the Statute does not provides appeal or revision, the intention of the legislature is to give finality of the decisions of the appellate authority. According to the counsel for the respondent, with the objective of expeditious disposal, no further appeal is provided under the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act. Therefore, it cannot be interpreted and give way for a further appeal in the form of a revision as contended by the Amicus curiae and the petitioner. The counsel relied on the decision in Laxmikant Revchand Bhojwani and Others v. Pratapsing Mohansingh Pardeshi [ 1995 (6) SCC 576 ] and in Koyilerian Janaki and Others v. Rent Controller (Munsiff), Cannanore & Others [ 2000(9) SCC 406 ]. 32. However, it is admitted by the learned counsel for the respondent at a point that when there is no appeal provided by the Statute, civil revision is the remedy. When the civil revision is barred under Section 115 CPC, the only remedy is to file an original petition under Art. 227 based on Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Company Ltd. [ (2003) 3 SCC 524 ]. 33. On the basis of the above contentions, it is concluded by the counsel for the respondent that upon a strict and narrow interpretation of the Act, as laid down in Ambalal cited supra, no further appeal or revision is contemplated under the commercial courts Act and as such only remedy of the petitioner could be to approach the Supreme Court under Article 137 of the Constitution. 34. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Act, 2015 is a special Statute. 34. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Act, 2015 is a special Statute. There is a bar in preferring appeal under section 13(2) which is in conflict with section 100 of CPC which provides an appeal to the High Court from every decree passed in appeal by any court subordinate to High Court. Since there is a conflict with Sec.13(2) and Sec.100 of CPC, Parliament made an amendment to incorporate Sec.16(3) which deals with an overriding power to the Statute. Thereby the Second Appeal barred under Section 13(2) have an overriding effect over Section 100 of CPC on the basis of amendment brought to Section 16(3). 35. Sec.8 of the Act, 2015 bars revision against the interlocutory order whereas on the question of jurisdiction a revision is enabled under section 115 of the CPC. According to the petitioner, the interlocutory order is explained as “interlocutory order is purely interim or temporary which do not decide or touch the important rights and liabilities of parties. It is an order which is made in pending case before the final hearing.” (Amar Nath And Others vs State Of Haryana & Others) [ AIR 1997 SC 2185 ]. But in the case in hand, the challenge is raised against the final judgment passed by the appellate Court in the absence of specific provision for a Second Appeal. It is further contended that Section 13(2) of the Act, 2015, and Section 16(1) and (2) of the amended provisions of CPC does not restrict exercising the revisoinal powers of the High Court under Section 115(1) of CPC. It states that the High Court may call for the records of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto and if such subordinate Court appears, (a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or (b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or (c) to have acted in the exrcise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. 36. On the strength of his contentions, it is asserted that nothing is wrong in entertaining a CRP against a final order passed by the appellate authority under the Commercial Courts Act. 37. 36. On the strength of his contentions, it is asserted that nothing is wrong in entertaining a CRP against a final order passed by the appellate authority under the Commercial Courts Act. 37. I have heard Sri.G.Krishnakumar., learned Amicus curiae, Sri.Gopikrishnan Nambiar, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank assisted by Sri.Chethan Krishna and Sri.N.Anil Kumar, the counsel for the revision petitioner. 38. As stated earlier, the primary issue to be decided is whether CRP under Section 115 of CPC is maintainable against the final order of the appellate authority under the Commercial Courts Act, to which the primary consideration to be given is Section 13 and Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act. Section13 (2) which is a non obstante clause completely bars an appeal except an appeal provided under Section 13(1), whereas Section 8 bars only revision application or petition against interlocutory orders. However, taking into consideration the arguments on the basis of rules of interpretation, it appears that this court need not go beyond the words that is deployed by the legislature with specific purpose. The words are quite clear and unambiguous to the terms that no civil revision application or petition shall be entertained against any interlocutory order of a commercial court including an order on the issue of jurisdiction. Whereas there is no specific exclusion with respect to the applicability of the other provisions than the amendment carried out to Chapter-VI of the Act 2015 whereby the amendments of the provision of Code of Civil Procedure carried out by Section 16 of Act, 2015. 39. Going by the decision in M/s. I.T.I Limited v. M/s. Siemens Public Communications Network Ltd supra it appears that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act provides no second appeal; but it safeguards the right to appeal if any to the supreme court. In such cases, the person being aggrieved by a first appeal court’s order can directly approach the Supreme Court.Similar views are taken by this court in Gopalakrishnan Nair’s case and in Narayanan Nambiyar’s cases cited supra. 40. The remedy of the litigant who suffered an adverse judgment and decree from commercial appellate court has to approach the high court under Section 115 CPC; but it is not a bar to approach the High Court under Art.227. 41. Here in the case in hand the only restriction under Sec.8 in exercising powers under section 115 is against interlocutory orders. 41. Here in the case in hand the only restriction under Sec.8 in exercising powers under section 115 is against interlocutory orders. This is with an objective to safeguard the purpose and intend of promulgation of the Commercial Courts Act 2015. This Act is specifically intended for the expeditious disposal, considering the dispute resolution environment in the Country and one of the parameters for doing business. Further the tremendous economic development as ushered in enormous commercial activities in the country including foreign direct investments public private, partnership etc., which has prompted initiating legislative measures for speedy settlement of commercial disputes, widen the scope of the Courts to deal with commercial disputes and facilitate ease of doing business. It is further clarified that early resolution of the commercial disputes of even lesser value create positive image amongst the investors about the strong and responsive Indian legal system. This is in taking into consideration that the global economic environment has become increasingly competitive and to attract business at the international level, for which India needs to further improve its ranking in the World Bank “Doing Business Report.” 42. However, this objective of the promulgation of the Act shall not restrain the aggrieved person from availing a remedy if he is aggrieved by judgment of the appellate court. Here in the first place, the case was in favour of the revision petitioner later the appellant forum held against the petitioner. Only because no specific second appeal is provided, the petitioner cannot be denied the access to justice. 43. For that purpose it is required to find what is the remedy available for the petitioner. Primarily going by the words employed by the Legislature under Sec.115, the High Court has power to interfere in the decision of any Subordinate Courts against which no appeal lies to such High Court, where such Subordinate Courts have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In such cases there is nothing wrong in exercising the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of CPC. However, the said power is not restricted in availing the jurisdiction under Art.227. But as per the settled principle that a court should sparingly entertain a petition under Art.227, the availability of alternative remedy will not be completely barred. 44. In such cases there is nothing wrong in exercising the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of CPC. However, the said power is not restricted in availing the jurisdiction under Art.227. But as per the settled principle that a court should sparingly entertain a petition under Art.227, the availability of alternative remedy will not be completely barred. 44. In the case in hand there is no specific or alternative remedy available. Therefore there is no specific bar even in entertaining a petition under Art.227 against an order of appeal under section 13(1) of the Act, 2015. 45. To conclude, both civil revision as well as petition under Art.227 is maintainable against an order passed by the appellate forum under Section 13 (1) of the Act, 2015. But bearing in mind the objective of the Act, for a speedy and expeditious disposal, what required is to give an identification to such petition by granting a specific code as in the case of arbitration or other petitions under Article 227. 46. Before parting with, it is an obligation from my part to appreciate the efforts taken by the counsel appearing for both sides especially the learned Amicus curiae, Sri.G.Kishnamkumar in rendering assistance to the court in arriving at such conclusion. In the aforementioned words, the question with respect to maintainability is answered in positive.