The main legal point established is that the maintainability of a writ appeal depends on the invocation of specific jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard on preliminary objection to the maintainability of this appeal.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the petition was filed by the appellant before the learned Single Judge seeking to invoke only supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the order of the learned Single Judge has been passed only under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and therefore, writ appeal would not be maintainable.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would argue that in the present case though the title of the petition is that it was petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the appellant could have also invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, it is contended, the appeal against that order would be maintainable under Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952. In support of his submissions, he places reliance upon the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhargavi Construction & Anr. v. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 11345 of 2017) and New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (Noida) v. Yunus & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 901 of 2022).

4. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties.

5. It is well settled legal position that where the order has been passed by the High Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and it is not a case where the party sought to invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, writ appeal would not be maintainable.

6. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant that even though the appellant has filed petition only under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, it would be treated as petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as well, cannot be accepted. We have gone through the petition filed by the appellant. The petition is titled as "Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India". The contents of the petition and the reliefs which have been sought also do not show that the appellant/petitioner sought to invoke jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

7. The petition was against an award passed by the Lok Adalat.

8. Therefore in such a situation, the petition in form as well as in substance was only a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

9. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of The New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. M/s. Suncity Holding & Trading Ltd. And Anr. vide its order dated 08.03.2018 passed in DB Special Appeal Writ No. 556/2018 has held that where an award passed by the Lok Adalat is challenged by filing a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, remedy of intra-Court appeal would not be available. In the aforesaid order, it has been held as below:-

"Admittedly, the Permanent Lok Adalat was created under the Legal Service Authority Act, 1987, against the order of Permanent Lok Adalat, there is no provision of appeal, therefore, the appellant preferred writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed against the award of Permanent Lok Adalat and now this special appeal has been filed by the appellant Insurance Company against the judgment of learned Single Judge. However, in view of judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court DBSAW No. 345/2015-Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. M/s. Shyam Narain Mehra & Brothers, decided on 29.07.2015, the instant appeal is not maintainable because it has been filed against the order passed by a writ court in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

The relevant discussion made by a coordinate bench of this Court in the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. M/s. Shyam Narain