JUDGMENT - PATEL H.D., J.:—A common question arose in the aforesaid four Letters Patent Appeals about their maintainability under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent (Bombay) before the Division Bench consisting of H. W. Dhabe and A. A. Desai, JJ. By judgment delivered on 6-2-1989, one of the Judges of the Division Bench, namely, Dhabe, J., expressed his opinion by giving reasons that all the four appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent are maintainable. The other Judge, that is, Desai, J., however, gave his opinion on 26-11-1992, in the following words:

“Having regard to the view as then taken in the case of Jaitunbi, I hold that the appeals are not maintainable. I, therefore, dismiss the same.”

It become necessary to point out that the case of (Jaitunbi Mohammed Ismail and others v. Smt. Halimabi Yusuf Baig)1, Letters Patent Appeal No. 14 of 1983 with other connected appeals was heard and decided by the Division Bench consisting of Qazi and Desai, JJ., on 21-8-1988. In that case my brother Desai. J., speaking for the Court, held that the Letters Patent Appeals before them were not maintainable. The same view was maintained by Desai, J., even in these appeals. This was despite the decision of Supreme Court in the case of (Sushilabai v. Nihalchand)2, A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 185, in which the decision of Full Bench of this Court between the same parties reported in (Shushilabai Laxminarayan Mudliyar v. Nihalchand Waghajibai Shaha)3, 1989 Mh.L.J. 695, on the same point as involved in the present appeals was declared as not a good law holding that its decision in the case of (Umaji v. Smt. Radhikabai and others)4, A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 1272, was clear and did not require any interpretation.

2. Since the views expressed by the Division Bench in these appeals were totally different or better still contrary to each other the matter came to be referred to the Full Bench for answering the question “Whether Letters Patent Appeals in these cases are maintainable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent?”

3. The Letters Patent Appeal No. 90/88 arises from the judgment of the Single Judge in a writ petition whereunder the orders passed by the Ceiling Authorities under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 are challenged. Similar is the position with respect to Letters Patent Appeal No. 98/88. Both the writ petitions were filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking identical relief of quashing the orders passed by the Ceiling Authorities after calling for the records and examining the legality and propriety of the orders passed by appropriate writ, order or direction. The Letters Patent Appeal No. 124/88, however, arises out of proceedings and orders passed under Rent Control Order. Even in this case the writ petition was filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The relief claimed was also on the same lines as the ones claimed in earlier petitions. All the three Letters Patent Appeals were placed before the Division Bench for admission when the question of their maintainability arose. The fourth Appeal bearing Letters Patent Appeal No. 20/83 was placed before the Division Bench for hearing parties in which a preliminary objection regarding its maintainability appears to have been raised by the contesting respondents. The said Letters Patent Appeal arose out of proceedings and order passed under section 33-C( 2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The order of the Labour Court was challenged in a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. The relief claimed was the quashing of order passed by Labour Court by appropriate writ, order or direction.

4. It is not for the first time that this controversy is being raised in this Court. The Full Bench of three Judges had occasion to deal with the very same controversy in Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 3, 10, 11, 17 of 1979 and Letters Patent Appeal No. 34/80. (Shankar v. Gyanchand)5. By judgment dated 3-9-1980, it was held that no appeal lies under

Click Here to Read the rest of this document