( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed against an order passed by the learned Single judge on March 5, 1997 in Special Criminal Application No. 1371 of 1996. By that order, the learned Single Judge summarily rejected the petition filed by the appellant petitioner.

( 2 ) WE have heard Mr. Kranti Vinayak, Party-in-person at considerable length. We are of the opinion that since the order passed by the learned Single Judge was "in exercise of criminal jurisdiction", an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent (Bombay) was applicable to this case, Letters Patent Appeal is not competent. We, therefore, asked Mr. Vinayak, (party-in-person) to satisfy us as to how an LPA filed by him is maintainable.

( 3 ) HE submitted that the petition filed by him was neither in exercise of Civil jurisdiction nor in exercise of Criminal Jurisdiction but in extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, and hence, Letters Patent Appeal would lie. He also submitted that no adequate and full opportunity was afforded by the learned Single Judge, and thus, there is an error apparent on the face of record, which requires to be corrected. When an order is passed