M. Venugopal, S. Vaidyanathan, JJ.

The Writ Appeal S.R. has been listed "for maintainability", as the Registry has raised query that the appellant is not a party in W.P.No.17367 of 2017 and there is a delay of 60 days in filing the appeal.

2. Challenging the order of the learned single Judge in W.P.No.17367 of 2017, dated 10.10.2017, directing the Police to register the FIR if any cognizable offence is made out, the Society has come forward with the present Writ Appeal and sought leave of the Court and as the issue with regard to the maintainability was raised, the matter is posted before us.

3. Detailed arguments were advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-Society stating that the Society has not been made as a party-respondent in the Writ Petition and that as there is an adverse order against the Society while allowing such Writ Petition, the Writ Appeal is maintainable and that the Registry ought to have numbered the Writ Appeal. According to the learned counsel, the appellant-Society has got a fundamental right to question the impugned order of the learned single Judge, more particularly when the rights of the Society had been affected.

4. As the Registry raised the question of maintainability, the matter is placed before us after recording the endorsement made by the learned counsel for the appellant on return of papers, endorsing that, "the appellant-Society is not made a party to the writ petition; the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.17367 of 2017, dated 10.10.2017 is affecting the right of the society; hence, the appellant Society seeking leave of the Court for filing Writ Appeal against the said order; therefore, question of condonation of delay in filing writ appeal does not arise. Direct the Registry may be placed the matter before the Hon'ble Bench for maintainability."

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. De-hors the aspect of delay in filing the appeal and seeking leave to file the appeal, it is no doubt true that for registering an FIR, not only a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be filed, but also this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is empowered to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction. When such power has been exercised under Article 226, whether the Writ Appeal (intra-Court appeal) is maintainable before this Court under Clause 15 of the Letters Parent. Under the Constitution of India, there is no provision for intra-Court appeal to be filed against the order of the single Judge passed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in that regard. Article 226 only deals with the power of the High Court to issue certain writs. Writ Petition could be heard either by a single Judge or by a Division Bench consisting of two or more Judges.

7. The intra-Court appeal is provided under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of this Court. For better appreciation, it is useful to quote Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, as follows :

"Clause 15. Appeal from the Courts of Original Jurisdiction to the High Court in its appellate jurisdiction: And We do further ordain that an appeal shall lie to the said High Court of Judicature at Madras from the judgment (not being a judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction by a Court subject to the superintendence of the said High Court, and not being an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, and not being a sentence or order passed or made in the exercise of the power of superintendence under the provisions of Sec.107 of the Government of India Act, or in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction) of one Judge of the said High Court or one Judge of any Division Court, pursuant to Sec.108 of the Government of India Act, and that notwithstanding anything herein before provided an appeal shall lie to the said High Court from a judgment of one Judge of the said High Court or one Judge of any Divi