The main legal point established in the judgment is the limitation on the maintainability of Letters Patent Appeal against orders under Article 227 and the interpretation of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.

S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA, A. C. J.

( 1 ) THE only question referred to and sought to be answered by this Bench in these appeals is where an appeal under Clause 10 of letters patent (commonly known as Letters patent Appeal - LPA) is maintainable against an order passed by a Single Judge under article 227 of the Constitution of India. ( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are as follows: appellant Swapan Kumar Bandopadhyay of L. P. A. No. 312 of 2004 was an employee of m/s Bharat Refractories Limited (hereinafter referred to as M/s B. R. L. ). He was allotted a Flat No. 6013 in Sector IV-F at Bokaro steel City. Even after his dismissal from service, he did not vacate the official Quarter. On an application jointly preferred by bokaro Steel Plant of Steel Authority of India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the SAIL)and M/s B. R. L. , a proceeding under Public premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 1971 Act) was initiated against the appellant, registered as A/e Case No. 21/97 before the Estate Officer, Bokaro Steel Plant. In the said case, the appellant filed an objection challenging the jurisdiction of the estate Officer, Bokaro Steel Plant and pleaded that the house was allotted to him by M/s B. R. L. and as such the said proceeding was not maintainable before the Estate Officer, Bokaro Steel Plant. He further pleaded that there was a separate Estate Officer appointed under Section 3 of the 1971 act for M/s B. R. L. His plea was accepted and the case was dismissed, holding the same as not maintainable, by order dated 14th August 1999 passed by the Estate Officer, Bokaro Steel Plant. Against the said order, Misc. Appeal being No. 53/99 was filed by M/s B. RL. in the Court of District Judge, bokaro. After giving notice and hearing the parties, the learned 1st Additional District judge, Bokaro, vide judgment dated 9th january 2002 allowed the appeal and directed the appellant to vacate the Quarter. For about two years thereafter, the appellant did not choose to move before any court of law against the said judgment dated 19th january 2002. After more than two years, a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was preferred by appellant against the judgment dated 19th January 2002, registered as W. P. (C) No. 1341 of 2004, which was dismissed by the learned Single judge by impugned order dated 25th March 2004 both on merit and on the ground of delay.

( 3 ) SO far as appellant Doman Mahto of l. P. A. No. 393 of 2004 is concerned, he was married with 2nd Respondent Meena Devi on 3rd May 2001. Later on, because of disputes and differences between them, they started living separately. A title (Matrimonial) Suit No. 289 of 2002 was filed by the appellant praying for a decree of divorce. The 2nd Respondent - Meena Devi (wife) appeared in the said case and filed an application under Section 24 of the hindu Marriage Act, 1955, claiming maintenance pendente lite. The learned Principle Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad on hearing the parties, vide impugned order dated 9th July 2003 allowed the petition and directed the appellant (husband) to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 1500/- to his wife - 2nd Respondent, pendente lite from the date of filing the petition i. e. 9th May 2003 as also the expenses of the proceedings.

( 4 ) THE appellant Doman Mahato challenged the aforesaid order before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of indiain W. P. (C) No. 3612 of 2003. Initially, the learned Single Judge tried to get the dispute settled by negotiation as the wife agreed to lead conjugal life with her husband, but since the appellant (husband) refused to keep his wife, the case was heard on merit. By impugned order dated 30th April 2004, the learned Single Judge in exercise of power conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, declined to interfere with the order of maintenance pendente lite. Against the said order L. P. A. No. 393 of 2004 has been preferred by the ap