A. D. DESAI, B. J. DIVAN, D. P. DESAI, J.

( 1 ) THE question which has been referred by the Division Bench of this Court for the decision of the Full Bench is as follows: Whether an appeal against the decision of a Single Judge of this High Court in the exercise of the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is barred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent (a) because the decision of the Single Judge can be said to be given in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction of the High Court; or (b) it is otherwise barred ?the Division Bench consisting of two of us (Chief Justice and D. P. Desai J.) referred this question to the larger bench because it was felt that the decision of the Division Bench consisting of S. H. Sheth and R. C. Mankad JJ. Letters Patent Appeal No. 303 of 1977 decided on February 6 1978 (Gariadhar Gram Panchayat v. Nanubhai B. Desai A. I. R. 1978 Guj. 76) had not taken into consideration two decisions of the Supreme Court viz. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Vijay Anand A. I. R. 1963 Supreme Court 945 and Shanker v. Krishna A. I. R. 1970 Supreme Court 1; and it was also felt that it was unfortunate that the attention of the learned Judges who decided Letters Patent Appeal No. 303 of 1977 was not drawn to these two decisions of the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Vijay Anand (supra) and Shanker v. Krishna (supra ).

( 2 ) THE Division Bench consisting of S. H. Sheth and R. C. Mankad JJ. in Letters Patent Appeal No. 303 of 1977 held that if there is a judicial decision delivered by any Court or Tribunal and that decision is challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution the judgment or order of a learned Single Judge of this High Court in those proceedings under Article 226 would be in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court and hence a Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent would not be maintainable. In that decision the Division Bench consisting of S. H. Sheth and K. C. Mankad JJ. further held :in our opinion a judicial decision is one which is rendered by a Court or an authority which has no interest in the subject matter of the decision and which is rendered after hearing both the parties. In other words when a Court or an authority howsoever it might have been described decides a lis between two contesting parties the decision which it renders is a judicial decision. When such a decision is impugned before the High Court what the High Court does is to revise it. While doing so the High Court may confirm it Modify it or quash it. The revisional jurisdiction of the High Court within the meaning of that expression as used in Clause 15 of the Letters Patent embraces within its sweep all judicial orders made by Courts Tribunals and other authorities howsoever they might have been described. Such a function may be performed by a Tribunal by the State Government or by an officer of the State Government. Irrespective of who or which authority exercises this jurisdiction if the decision rendered by such an authority or Tribunal is a judicial decision by which the lis or the contest between the parties is decided the High Court in exercise of its power under Art. 226 does nothing more than to revise that decision. It may quash it or it may confirm it. But essentially the jurisdiction which the High Court exercises is that of revising the judicial decision impugned before it. Therefore irrespective of whether such a decision his been impugned under Art. 227 or Art. 226 none of which makes any references to a right of appeal against the decision of a learned Single judge frown such a decision is excluded by Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

( 3 ) IT is therefore clear that the Division Bench consisting of S. H. Sheth and R. C. Mankad JJ. held that an appeal against a decision of the learned Single Judge in exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution would not lie because the decision complained of before the Singl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document