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 pe