JUDGMENT - C.K. THAKKER, C.J.:---This Letters Patent Appeal is filed against an order passed by the learned Single Judge on 10th of April, 2002 in Writ Petition No. 2178 of 2002. The said order reads thus:

“The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or error apparent on the face of the record. Hence petition is rejected. On behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, learned Counsel makes a statement that the transit accommodation is ready and this transit accommodation is available to the petitioner; till such time the permanent accommodation comes up. Statement is accepted.

Petition is disposed of accordingly.”

2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

3. When the matter was placed for admission hearing, a preliminary objection was taken by the learned Counsel for respondents Nos. 2 and 3 that Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable inasmuch as the petition filed by the petitioners (present appellants) was under Article 227 of the Constitution. When the petitioners themselves had invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution and an order was passed, such an order would not be subject to intra-Court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

4. The learned Counsel for the respondents invited our attention to paragraph 13 of the writ petition wherein it was stated that being aggrieved by the order dated 11th December, 2001, passed by the Additional Collector, Bombay, the petitioners approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on several grounds raised in the petition. In paragraph 19 (prayer clause), a prayer was made that this Court be pleased to call for records and proceedings and on perusal thereof, to pass an appropriate order setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner in appeal.

5. The learned Counsel for the appellants, on the other hand, submitted that an appeal is maintainable as, in substance and in reality, the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution was invoked by the petitioners. For the above submission, reference was made by the Counsel to a decision of the Apex Court in (Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. v. Shankarprasad)1, 1999(4) Bom.C.R. (S.C.)322. The Supreme Court in that case observed that where a petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, Letters Patent Appeal would be maintainable. There, a contention was raised on behalf of the appellant that the writ petition filed by the respondent (original petitioner) in the High Court was in substance under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and appeal was not competent. The Supreme Court, however, considering the facts of the case and the petition which was filed by the petitioner in the High Court, observed that the petitioner had invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. Letters Patent Appeal was, therefore, maintainable.

6. Reliance was also placed on a recent decision of the Apex Court in (Kanhaiyalal Agrawal others v. Factory Manager, Gwalior Sugar Company Ltd.)2, 2001(9) S.C.C. 609, and in particular, paragraph 6 thereof. In that case, writ appeals were dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court holding that they were not maintainable as they arose out of proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution which was revisional in nature. The Court, after referring leading decisions on the point, observed that an intra-Court appeal would lie if a Single Judge exercises jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution but if he exercises jurisdiction under Article 227, an appeal would not be competent. The Court stated:

“But with an explanation that if the Single Judge of the High Court in considering the petition under Article 226 or 227 does not state under which provision he has decided the matter and where the facts justify filing of petition both under Article 226 and Article 227 and a petition so filed is dismissed by the Single Judge on merits, the matter may be considered in its proper perspective in an appea

Click Here to Read the rest of this document