Lsp IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 2509 OF 2008 Umesh Nilekani & ors. ...Petitioners V/s. The Press Trust of India Limited & anr. ...Respondents Ms. Jane Cox for the petitioners. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. DATED DATED DATED : 24th October, 2008 : 24th October, 2008 : 24th October, 2008 P.C. . Heard Counsel for the parties. Even if argument of the petitioners is to be accepted as it is, that the Court below has committed manifest error in not even adverting to basic grievance made by the petitioners about malafides involved in issuance of transfer order in question, which position is supported by the circumstances already placed on record in the complaint and contemporaneous record, the question is, on accepting that grievance, the logical order that will have to be passed by this Court is to relegate the parties before the Lower Court to reconsider the said grievance which goes to the root of the matter. That direction can be passed by the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and not under Article 226. Under Article 226, this Court would merely annul the order in question and do no more. Having realised this position, Counsel for the 2 petitioner on instructions submits that in that case the petitioners be permitted to convert this petition to one under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India. There is no difficulty in accepting this request of the petitioners. The petitioners to carry out necessary amendment within one week from today. On carrying out the amendment, Office will have to necessarily place the petition on the Appellate Side of the High Court as Writ Petition under Article 226 read with Article 227 cannot proceed on the Original Side of the High Court even though the subject matter involved in the petition is within the jurisdiction of Mumbai District. 2. It is made clear that this order is not an expression of opinion either way with regard to the correctness or otherwise of the argument of the petitioner referred to herein before. All questions in that behalf will have to be decided on its own merits. 3. In view of the peculiar facts of the present case, the petitioners will have to be granted some protection. However, it is not necessary to pass any order in view of the assurance given by the respondent Counsel on instructions that respondents would not precipitate the 3 matter till 17th November, 2008. That assurance is accepted. The petitioners will be free to move the Vacation Judge for other appropriate relief, if so advised. [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.] [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.] [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.]