R. Banumathi, J.

When the judgment was rendered by the Single Judge in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, whether intra-court appeal is maintainable under clause 10 of the Letters Patent constituting the High Court of Judicature at Patna (as adopted by the Jharkhand High Court) is the point falling for consideration in this Letters Patent Appeal.

2. Brief facts, which led to filing of this L.P.A, are as under:-

The appellant is a company carrying on business of mining in the name and style of Murliwala Mineral Pvt. Ltd. and engaged in exploring, opening, working mines drills and shafts borewell and pump refine and quarry for stone, coal, earth lime stone, iron, aluminum, tantinium, vanadium, mica, feloshper, quartz, bauxite and other minerals and to develop the same for business purposes. By its application dated 9.1.1997 in terms of Rule 22(i) of the Minerals Concession Rules, 1960, the appellant applied for grant of lease for minerals, Mica Felosphar and Quartz, in an area of 140 acres of land situated in Mouza Nagri of the district Giridih. Vide memo dated 12.3.1997, the Assistant Mining Officer, Giridih, informed the appellant to furnish certain documents and the appellant submitted the same. Vide memo dated 23.2.2000 issued by the Additional Director, Mines, Govt. of Bihar, the Assistant Mining Officer, Giridih, was directed to procure the “No Objection Certificate” of the Forest Authority and to make the same available along with other documents.

3. It is noted that though the appellant applied for grant of mining lease on 9.1.1997 and the same remained pending with the erstwhile State of Bihar and after creation of the State of Jharkhand, vide letter dated 23.2.2000 and by other letters, the appellant was directed to appear before the authorities; but the application was not disposed of. For early disposal of his application, the appellant moved Jharkhand High Court in W.P(C) No.6318/2003. Vide order dated 23.12.2003, the same was disposed of with a direction to the State Government to dispose of the application within three months. Vide memo dated 12.5.2004, the State of Jharkhand rejected the application of the appellant. The appellant preferred revision under Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and Rule 55 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, before the Government of India and vide order dated 19.3.2007, the revision application was dismissed by the revisional authority.

4. Challenging the order of the Deputy Commissioner, vide memo dated 12.5.2004, and the order dated 19.3.2007 passed by the revisional authority, the appellant filed writ petition, W.P(C) No.2844/2007. The said writ petition was dismissed on 22.11.2012, in which learned Single Judge held that in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction in the writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Court is to see whether the State Government or Tribunal has remained within the bounds of the jurisdiction or committed serious error of jurisdiction or acted in excess of jurisdiction. The learned Single Judge further held that the original authority, i.e. the State Government or the revisional authority, namely, the Central Government Mining Tribunal have not committed any perversity warranting interference by the court and accordingly dismissed the writ petition. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition, the appellant has preferred this intra-court appeal.

5. In view of the serious objections raised by the respondents as to the maintainability of the intra-court appeal, we heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties on the question of maintainability of the intra-court appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, submitted that irrespective of the fact that whether the impugned order is passed by a Court or the Tribunal at the first instance in exercise of the original jurisdiction or by the Tribunal in