OPINION BY

Appellant, Edward J. Barr, appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County that sustained the preliminary objections of the Pennsylvania Department of State, Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs (Bureau), and granted the Bureau’s “motion to strike” Appellant’s complaint in mandamus for lack of jurisdiction. Barr filed his complaint in mandamus with the Monroe County Common Pleas Court against the Bureau to compel the Bureau to reissue his real estate broker’s license for the years 2000 to 2002 and sought punitive and compensatory damages, interests and costs.

*245Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy designed to compel the performance of a mandatory duty or ministerial act only where there is (1) a clear legal right in the plaintiff, (2) a corresponding duty in the defendant, and (3) no other appropriate or adequate remedy. Merritt v. West Mifflin Area School District, 56 Pa.Cmwlth. 126, 424 A.2d 572 (1981).

In his complaint, Barr alleged that, on May 30, 2000, he sent a certified letter to the Bureau requesting the status of his real estate broker’s license.2 He further alleged that, on June 1, 2000, he had to close his business in order to comply with the Real Estate Licensing and Registration Act (Act),3 which precludes a broker from conducting business without a valid license.4 On June 2, 2000, the Bureau acknowledged receipt of Barr’s certified letter. Barr further asserted in his complaint that the Bureau withheld his license without just cause; that it failed to use due care in issuing his license in a timely manner; that it failed to maintain adequate control and supervision of its management and staff; that it failed to use due care under all of the circumstances and that, as a result, he suffered economic losses, loss of trade, loss of reputation and loss of future trade. Again, in addition to requesting that the Bureau reissue his license, Barr asked for punitive and compensatory damages as well as interest and costs.5

The Bureau filed preliminary objections, asserting that the Common Pleas Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the complaint, and a demurrer alleging that the complaint failed to meet the requirements for a mandamus action. The Common Pleas Court concluded that the Bureau is an agency of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania pursuant to Sections 801 and 810 of the Administrative Code of 1929,6 71 P.S. §§ 271, 279.1, and that, pursuant to Section 761(a)(1) of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 761(a)(1), the Commonwealth Court, and not the Common Pleas Court, has original jurisdiction of all civil actions or proceedings against the Commonwealth. Section 761(a)(1) provides:

General rule. — The Commonwealth Court shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions or proceedings:

*246(1)Against the Commonwealth government, including any officer thereof, acting in his official capacity, except:

(i) actions or proceedings in the nature of applications for a writ of habeas corpus or postconviction relief not ancillary to proceedings within the appellate jurisdiction of the court;

(ii) eminent domain proceedings;

(in) actions or proceedings conducted pursuant to Chapter 85 (relating to matters affecting government units);

(iv) actions or proceedings conducted pursuant to the act of May 20, 1937 (P.L 728, No. 193), referred to as the Board of Claims Act; and

(v) actions or proceedings in the nature of trespass as to which the Commonwealth government formerly enjoyed sovereign or other immunity and actions or proceedings in the nature of assumpsit relating to such actions or proceedings in the nature of trespass.

42 Pa.C.S. § 761(a)(1).

After briefs and argument, the Common Pleas Court entered an order dated December 4, 2000, holding, in essence, that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the complaint. However, instead of transferring the case to this Court pursuant to Section 5103 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 5103 (relating to the transfer of erroneously filed matters), the court simply granted the Bureau’s motion to strike Barr’s complaint.7 The Common Pleas Court did so even though it found that this Court had jurisdiction over the action pursuant to Section 761(c) of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 761(c).8 Barr filed the instant appeal to this Court.9

On appeal, Barr alleges that, based on Pa. R.C.P. No. 1092(c)(1), a rule relating to venue, the Common Pleas Court does have jurisdiction in mandamus actions against a Commonwealth agency. In essence, he argues that since Pa. R.C.P. No. 1092(c)(1) requires that an action against a department of the Commonwealth compelling performance of a duty must be brought' in the county where the cause of action arose, it was proper for him to have brought his mandamus action before the Common Pleas Court in Monroe County.

*247Although Barr is correct that Pa. R.C.P. No. 1092(c)(1)10 presupposes jurisdiction in the common pleas court, a rule regarding venue cannot vest jurisdiction since venue is subsidiary to jurisdiction.

Venue is defined as “[t]he proper or a possible place for the trial of a lawsuit....” Blaok’s Law DICTIONARY 1553 (7th ed. 1999). Jurisdiction is defined, on the other hand, as “[a] government’s general power to exercise authority over all persons and things within its territory....” Id. at 855. Venue and jurisdiction are distinguishable; venue relates to where judicial authority may be exercised, but more important, jurisdiction is the power to adjudicate. Charles Alan Wright, The Law of Federal Courts § 42, 257 (5th ed. 1994). Here, by virtue of 42 Pa.C.S. § 761(a), this Court has jurisdiction over Barr’s mandamus action, and this Court’s jurisdiction is primary over any rule regarding venue.

Section 761(a) of the Judicial Code clearly gives the Commonwealth Court original jurisdiction over “all civil actions[11] or proceedings: ... [ajgainst the Commonwealth government, including any officer thereof, acting in his official capacity” (footnote added), with some noted exceptions not relevant here.12 42 Pa.C.S. § 761(a). Furthermore, this Court has original jurisdiction in actions against the Commonwealth where the Commonwealth is an indispensable party to the action. See Annenberg v. Commonwealth, 686 A.2d 1380 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1996). Pursuant to Section 102 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 102, the term “Commonwealth government” is defined as:

The government of the Commonwealth, including the courts and other officers or agencies of the unified judicial system, the General Assembly and its officers and agencies, the Governor, and the departments, boards, commissions, authorities and officers and agencies of the Commonwealth, but the term does not include any political subdivision, municipal or other local authority, or any officer or agency of any such political subdivision or local authority.

The Bureau, as a department of the Commonwealth, is clearly encompassed within the term “Commonwealth government.” Furthermore, pursuant to Section 761(b) of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 761(b), this Court’s jurisdiction under Section *248761(a) is exclusive except with respect to matters under the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and in matters where the jurisdiction of this Court is concurrent with the courts of common pleas. Since this mandamus action was brought against a department of the Commonwealth, and the matter is not within the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, nor is it a matter where the courts of common pleas have concurrent jurisdiction with the Commonwealth Court, jurisdiction is exclusive in this Court.13

In summary, we hold that Section 761(a) of the Judicial Code prevails over Pa. R.C.P. No. 1092(c)(1), and that the Common Pleas Court therefore properly determined that this Court has original jurisdiction to hear the instant mandamus action. However, although the Common Pleas Court properly ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to hear this litigation, it nevertheless sustained the Bureau’s motion to strike Appellant’s complaint and dismissed the case instead of transferring the case to this Court. This result is inconsistent with Section 5103 of the Judicial Code, which provides:

(a) General rule. — If an appeal or other matter is taken to or brought in a court or magisterial district of this Commonwealth which does not have jurisdiction of the appeal or other matter, the court or district justice shall not quash such appeal or dismiss the matter, but shall transfer the record thereof to the proper tribunal of this Commonwealth, where the appeal or other matter shall be treated as if originally filed in the transferee tribunal on the date when the appeal or other matter was first filed in a court or magisterial district of this Commonwealth. A matter which is within the exclusive jurisdiction of a court or district justice of this Commonwealth but which is commenced in any other tribunal of this Commonwealth shall be transferred by the other tribunal to the proper court or magisterial district of this Commonwealth where it shall be treated as if originally filed in the transferee court or magisterial district of this Commonwealth on the date when first filed in the other tribunal.

42 Pa.C.S. § 5103 (emphasis added).

In Nason v. Commonwealth, 516 Pa. 517, 533 A.2d 435 (1987), this Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Department of Public Welfare and certain state and county officials in a mandamus action brought by Nason, a mentally retarded individual, and trustees to a testamentary trust under which Nason was a beneficiary, which sought to compel payment for Nason’s care in a private facility until there was an opening in a state-operated facility. This Court held that Nason was required to exhaust both the income and the principal of her trust before she was entitled to public funding for interim care at a private facility. However, the Supreme Court vacated this Court’s order and transferred the case to the Court of Common Pleas in Chester County pursuant to Section 5103 of the Judicial Code and Pa. R.A.P. 751 (both dealing with the transfer of cases by a court that does not have jurisdiction over a matter erroneously filed in that court), for consideration on the merits. As persons aggrieved by a local agency’s' adjudication, Nason and the trustees had a right to appeal to the Common Pleas Court first, *249and, since they did not, their mandamus action was not properly before the Commonwealth Court.

Here, Barr was not aggrieved by a local agency adjudication. Instead, he sought to compel a Commonwealth party to perform its duty, that is, issue his real estate broker’s license. Barr’s mandamus complaint should never have been filed in Common Pleas Court, so we will vacate that court’s decision and transfer the suit to this Court in our original jurisdiction pursuant to Section 5103 of the Judicial Code.

ORDER

AND NOW, this 9th day of July, 2002, the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County in the above-captioned matter is hereby VACATED and the matter is transferred to this Court in our original jurisdiction.

The Chief Clerk is hereby directed to establish a briefing schedule with respect to the outstanding preliminary objection.