This petition has been placed before the Full Bench pursuant to order dated 15.11.2011 by the Division Bench of this Court (Coram: S.A.Bobde and Smt.V.K.Tahilramani, JJ.) referring the following question for consideration before the Larger Bench:-

"Whether a writ petition arising out of order passed under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act,1971 should be placed before a learned Single Judge of this Court in accordance with Rule 18(3) of the Chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules,1960 or should be placed before a Division Bench?"

2. The reference has been made by the Division Bench on account of the views expressed by another Division Bench of this Court (Coram: Rebello F.I. & Bhatia J.H., JJ.) in Nusli Neville Wadia Vs. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. & Anr., 2010 (4) Bom.C.R. 807 taking the view that the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Public Premises Act") deals with the subject which is covered by Article 323-B(2)(h) of the Constitution of India, and therefore, the direction of the Supreme Court in the case of L.Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors., (1997) 3 SCC 261 will apply. According to the said Division Bench, as per the said direction, writ petition challenging orders passed by the Tribunal under a Legislation which is referable to Articles 323-A or 323-B will have to be necessarily heard by Division Bench of the High Court.

3. Ms. Jayashree Surati, Learned Counsel for the petitioner supported the order of reference.

4. Mr. Rafiq Dada, Learned Counsel appearing for respondents supported the view taken by the Division Bench in Nusli Neville Wadia case (supra) and submitted that since the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act is not specified in any of the 43 clauses of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 18 in Chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules,1960, this petition challenging the order of the City Civil Court under the Public Premises Act will have to be heard by the Division Bench of this Court and under the Rules such matters cannot be heard by a learned Single Judge of this Court. It is submitted that if the submission made by a learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner is accepted, clauses 4 to 43 of Rule 18 in Chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules,1960 would be rendered otiose or nugatory. It is submitted that in view of the explanation, the orders by the quasi judicial authority specifically mentioned in clauses (1) to (43) of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 18 in Chapter XVII, it will be governed by Rule 18 and the explanation will not cover the orders passed by any other quasi judicial authority.

5. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for parties, we find that Clause (3) of Rule 18 of Chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules,1960, is wide enough to include the orders passed by any quasi judicial authority under any enactment, even if such explanation is not covered by clause 1, 2 and 4 to 43 of Rule 18. It is necessary to note that the original Rule 18 had 5 clauses providing that the orders passed under the Rules and legislations specified therein may be challenged in the writ petition before the Single Judge. It appears that subsequently several clauses came to be added to Rule 18. In the year 1997 by Notification dated 16.10.1997, the Explanation came to be added. It was thereafter by Notification dated 15.7.1999 that Clause (3) of Rule 18 came to be amended to insert the words "or by any quasi Judicial Authority". It appears to us that this amendment to Clause (3) of Rule 18 was made in the year 1999 to cover orders of any quasi Judicial Authority under any other legislation which may not have been specified in Clause (1) to (43). Hence, the order passed by the quasi Judicial Authority under the Public Premises Act,1971 is also covered by Rule 18(3) so as to indicate that the petitions under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constituti