The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between administrative, judicial, and quasi-judicial orders, and the implications of maintainability based on the nature of the orders.

JUDGMENT :

Avinash G. Gharote, J.

A preliminary objection has been raised by Mr. Kapil Deshmukh, learned Counsel, who appears for respondent No. 3 in L.P.A. No. 143/2011 and for appellant in L.P.A. No. 79/2011, contending that a writ petition before a learned Single Judge of this Court, was not maintainable at all, in view of which, the present letter patent appeals would also not be tenable.

2. Mr. Kapil Deshmukh, learned Counsel submits, that in Writ Petition No. 3253/2009, preferred by Ku. Panchasheela Patil, the decision rendered on 26-6-2009, by the Grievance Committee, in Appeal No. 21/2007, was challenged along with the appointment order dated 16-3-2007, whereunder the appellant Deepak Chaphale, was appointed. It is submitted that both these orders, were administrative orders and not judicial or quasi-judicial orders. By placing reliance upon Rule 18 Chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 (for short, “the Appellate Side Rules” hereinafter), he contends that, that only judicial and quasi-judicial orders and not administrative orders can be challenged under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution before the learned Single Judge, in view of which, the petition before the learned Single Judge itself was not maintainable. Relying upon Secretary, A.P.D. Jain Pathshala and others vs. Shivaji Bhagwat More and others, (2011) 13 SCC 99, he submits, that the very constitution of the Grievance Committee was put in question and it was held that the orders/decisions of the Grievance Committee, as constituted under the Government Resolution dated 27-4-2000 by the State of Maharashtra were not enforceable or executable, but only recommendatory in nature, in view of which, the challenge to the same, was clearly not amenable to the jurisdiction of the learned Single Judge under Rule 18 of Chapter XVII of the Appellate Side Rules. Learned Counsel Mr. Kapil Deshmukh also places reliance upon Pandurang vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1987 SC 535, to contend that when a matter is required to be decided by the Division Bench of the High Court, but is decided by a Single Judge, the judgment would be a nullity. He further submits, that a pure question of law can be raised at any stage of the proceedings, for which reliance is placed upon Bhagyashreeraje Shivajirao Dhanwatey and another vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2007 (1) Bom. C.R. 219; State of U. P. and others vs. Dr. Anupam Gupta etc., AIR 1992 SC 932; Union of India and others vs. Upper Ganges Sugar and Industries Ltd., (2005) 1 SCC 750. Learned Counsel Mr. Kapil Deshmukh therefore submits, that since the writ petition itself was not maintainable, the resultant letters patent appeals on these grounds, would also not be maintainable.

3. Mr. Kailash Narwade, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in L.P.A. No. 143/2011 also relies upon Harshad Chiman Lal Modi vs. DLF Universal Ltd. and another, (2005) 7 SCC 791 and also supports the submissions canvassed by Mr. Kapil Deshmukh, learned Counsel.

4. Mr. Shekhar Dhengale, learned Counsel for the appellant Ku. Panchasheela Patil, the appellant in L.P.A. No. 143/2011 and respondent No. 3 in L.P.A. No. 79/2011, opposes the submissions. He contends that Writ Petition No. 3253/2009, was decided on 14-1-2011, whereas the judgment in Secretary, A.P.D. Jain Pathshala (supra), came on 4-11-2011 and therefore, would not have any applicability upon the present matter. By relying upon Mohammad Swalleh and others vs. Third Additional District Judge, Meerut and another, (1988) 1 SCC 40, he contends that even if it is construed that the petition before the learned Single Judge was not maintainable, since the matter was now before the Division Bench, it was permissible to consider the merits of the matter and decide the same.

5. In rebuttal, Mr. Kapil Deshmukh, learned Counsel, places reliance upon State of Orissa and others vs. Md. Illiyas, (2006) 1 SCC 275 and Harshad Chiman Lal Modi vs. DLF Universal Ltd. and another, (20