The main legal point established in the judgment is the maintainability of appeals against orders passed by a Single Judge in proceedings arising from petitions filed under Articles 226, 227, and 228 of the Constitution of India.

R. P. SETHI, C. J.

( 1 ) ON being prima facie satisfied that the law laid down in management of Kalpana Theatre, Bangalore v B. S. Ravishankar and Another, had ignored various provisions of the Karnataka high Court Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') a division Bench of this Court referred this matter to this Bench for authoritative pronouncement.

( 2 ) IN Kalpana Theatre's case, supra, a Division Bench of this Court had held that no appeal was maintainable against the judgment or order passed by a Single Judge in petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and that such appeal was maintainable only if the judgment or order was passed in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the constitution of India.

( 3 ) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. The learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that while deciding Kalpana Theatre's case, supra, the Division Bench had not taken note of the amended provisions of Sections 9 and 10 of the Act and Rules 2 and 26 of the Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as 'the rules'), read with the forms appended to the rules. It is contended that the amendment made in the Karnataka Court fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, was also not taken note of.

( 4 ) IN order to appreciate the point of law referred to us, it is necessary to have a resume of various provisions of the Act and the rules. Section 4 of the Act provides that an appeal from a judgment, decree, order or sentence passed by a Single Judge in the exercise of the original jurisdiction of the High Court under this Act or under any law for the time being in force, shall lie to and be heard by a Bench consisting of two other Judges of the high Court. Section 9 of the Act deals with the powers of a single Judge with respect to the matters specified therein, and clause (xii) inserted by Act 12 of 1973 provides:" (XII) exercise of powers under. (a) Clause (1) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India except where such power relates to the issue of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus; and (b) Articles 227 and 228 of the Constitution of India". The amended clause (iv-a) of Section 10 of the Act provides:" (IV-A) an appeal from any original judgment, order or decree passed by a Single Judge in exercise of the powers under clause (1) of Article 226, Article 227 and article 228 of the Constitution of India". Rule 2 (1) of the rules provides that every petition under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution shall be designated as 'writ petition' and be in Form No. 1 appended to the rules. Every such petition is required to set forth succinctly in chronological order and in consecutively numbered paragraphs all the relevant facts which are said to have given occasion to the petition, the grounds in support of the petition and the relief claimed. Form no. 1 clearly indicates that petitions filed under Articles 226, 227 and 228 of the Constitution are taken cognizance by the court in its original jurisdiction. Form No. V provides the format of memorandum of writ appeal. Rule 26 of the rules provides that every appeal filed from an order passed by a Single Judge on a writ petition shall be designated as 'writ appeal', and under rule 27 a provision has been made for preferring the appeal in the form of a memorandum as per Form No. V.

( 5 ) IN Kalpana Theatre's case, supra, various provisions of the Act and the rules as noted here in above were not referred to or taken note of by the Division Bench. The Court was persuaded to hold regarding non-maintainability of appeals against judgments or orders passed by the Single Judge under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on the basis of various judgments of the Supreme Court and different High Courts. It is again worthwhile to note that in all those matters no provision analogous to the provisions as incorporated in the Act and the rules was made. On the basis of the judgments cited before it the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document