IMPORTANT POINT
The Full Bench clarified that the jurisdiction of the Single Judge under Rule 18 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, extends to all quasi-judicial orders, regardless of whether the specific statute is listed in the rule.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

NITIN JAMDAR, J. - By order dtd. 11/4/2023 in this Writ Petition, the learned Single Judge (Sarang V. Kotwal, J.) directed the Registry to place the matter before the learned Chief Justice to consider constituting a Larger Bench to decide the issue formulated in the said order. Accordingly, the matter is placed before this Full Bench.

2. The issue formulated by the learned Single Judge is as follows:-

"Whether the Single Judge's powers to finally dispose of applications under Article 226 or 227 as provided under Rule 18 of Chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, are applicable to the specific Acts mentioned under sub-Rule 6 to 46 of the said Rule in relation to judicial or quasi-judicial orders or these powers extend to any judicial or quasijudicial orders under any statute that is not mentioned under sub-Rule 6 to 46 of the said Rule."

3. In this Writ Petition the Petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Arbitrator in Arbitration Petition No. 169 of 2016. The Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which involves provisions of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise Development Act, 2006 and Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Respondent raised a preliminary objection before the learned Single Judge that the Petition does not lie before the Single Judge and it should be listed before the Division Bench. The Respondent relied on two judgments and orders passed by the Division Benches in Writ Petition (St.) No. 24 of 2021 in the case of Shivaji Laxman Wadkar and Ors. v/s. Election Returning Officer and Anr., [WP(St.) No.24/2021 dtd. 4/01/2021 and in Writ Petition Nos. 7056, 4268 and 7056 of 2018] (Nagpur Bench) in the case of Shri Hariom Krishi Kendra and Ors. v/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors.,2020(3) Mh. L.J. 118 The Petitioner, on the other hand, relied on the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Prakash Securities Pvt. Ltd. v/s. Life Insurance Corporation of India ,2012(5) Mh.L.J. 312 dtd. 26/4/2021 to contend that the Petition would pertain to the Single Judge. The learned Single Judge, noticing a divergence of opinions on the subject, by order dtd. 11/4/2023, made a reference on the issue, reproduced above.

4. The Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, deals with various procedural aspects, as regards which writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India are to be placed before the Division Bench and which are to be placed before the Single Judge. Having framed the Rules, the High Court can and has, from time to time, modified these Rules. Part 1 of the Rules deals with the conduct of business. Part 2 deals with Practice and Procedure. Chapter XVII of Part 2 of the Rules of 1960 regulates the filing of Petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Rule 18, which is the subject matter of debate, reads thus:-

"18. Single Judge's powers to finally dispose of applications under Article 226 or 227.-

Notwithstanding anything contained in Rules 1,4 and 17 of this Chapter, applications under Article 226 or under Article 227 of the Constitution (or applications styled as applications under Article 227 of the Constitution read with Article 226 of the Constitution) arising out of-

(1) The orders passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal under any enactment,

(2) The orders passed by any Authority or Tribunal (other than the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal) under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. or the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region and Kutch Area) Act, 1958, and the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. 1950 or Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961.

(3) The decrees or the orders passed by any Subordinate Court or by any quasi Judicial Authority in any suit or proceeding (including suits and proceedings under any Special or Local Laws), but excluding those arising out of the Parsi Chief Matrimonial Court and orders pas