A. B. NAIK, J.

( 1 ) THIS Letters Patent Appeal is filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, challenging the judgment and order dt. 23-7-2004 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 4616 of 2004.

( 2 ) THIS Appeal was lodged in this Court on 16-8-2004, and it was listed for motion hearing on 3-8-2004. On that day, the learned counsel appearing for the parties sought an adjournment and by consent, this Court adjourned the appeal for two weeks. Again the appeal was placed for motion hearing on 9-12-2004 and by consent of the parties, it was adjourned beyond Christmas vacation. On reopening the matter was listed before us for motion hearing on 25-1-2005. On that day, the Appeal was heard and remained part heard. Further hearing was commenced on 31-1-2005.

( 3 ) WE heard this Appeal on the point of maintainability as according to us, the appeal is not maintainable as the learned Single Judge has e-pressly e-ercised power conferred on this Court vide Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge by giving reasons dismissed the petition summarily and in concluding part of the order, observed :

"keeping in mind this well established position in law it is dear that the instant petition has to be treated to be a petition under Article 227 of the constitution of India and it is only for e-amining the legality of the order passed by the Election Tribunal. It does not involve considerations of any fundamental rights of the petitioner. The powers of this Court are limited when it considers the challenge to the view taken by the election tribunal in supervisory jurisdiction and, therefore, having considered the rival contentions there is no doubt that the view taken by the election tribunal in the instant case does not suffer on any count. It is neither perverse nor does it suffer from material irregularities. "16. The petition, thus, fails and the same is hereby rejected summarily. As from the above quoted portion of the order, it is clear that the learned single Judge has e-ercised the jurisdiction conferred on this Court by Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

( 4 ) WITH this backdrop, we called upon the learned advocate Shri R. B. Raghuwanshi, instructed by Shri P. B. Bachate, advocate for the petitioner to satisfy us on the maintainability of this appeal as it is by now well settled by catena of the judicial pronouncements of this Court and the Ape- Court to the effect that in case the High Court (learned Single Judge) disposed of the petition by e-ercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Letters patent Appeal under clause 15 is not maintainable. (See i) Umaji Keshao meshram and others vs. Radhikabai Widow of Anandrao Banapurkar and another reported in 1986 (Supp.) SCC 401; ii) State of Maharashtra vs. Kusum wd/o Charudutta and others reported in 1981 Mh. L. J. (FB) 93; iii) Jagannath ganbaji Chikhale vs. Gulabrao Raghobaji Bobde reported in 7965 Mh. L. J. 426 = (1965) Vol. 67 BLR 609; iv) Jagdish Balwantrao Abhyankar and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 1993 Mh. LJ. (F. B.) 958 = AIR 1994 Bom. 141 (FB); v) Madhukar Chandrabhan Mohite vs. Balkrishna Govind Sulakhe reported in 7999 Vol. 101 (3) BLR 824; vi) Kondiba Dhondiba Dalvi since deceased by his L. Rs. Smt. Chandrabhagabai Kondiba Dalvi and others vs. Narayan Namdeo Nanware reported in 2007 (2) Mh. LJ. 820; vii) Lokmat newspapers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Shankarprasad reported in (1999) 6 SCC 275; viii) hiralal Bhagirath Marwadi and another vs. Vishwanath Parashram Katekar and others reported in 7990 Mh. L. J. 259; i-) Division Bench judgment of this Court in Mansaram Sampat Patil since deceased through his L. Rs. Smt. Banubai mansaram Patil and others vs. Sambhu Harchand Chaudhary since deceased through his LRs. Smt Sumanbai w/o Harchand Choudhary and others reported in 2004 (4) Mh. LJ. 1105.

( 5 ) IN response to the preliminary point raised by us Shri Raghuwanshi, learned counsel appearing