The main legal point established in the judgment is that an intra Court appeal is not maintainable against the order of a learned Single Judge exercising powers under criminal jurisdiction, as per Clause 15 of the Madras High Court Letters Patent.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 12.06.2023 in W.P.(MD) No.28841 of 2022.)

M.S. Ramesh, J.

1. This appeal is preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge, passed in W.P.(MD) No.28841 of 2022 dated 12.06.2023, whereby the learned Single Judge had issued series of directions for identifying the existence of certain alleged public nuisances and for removal/rectification of such nuisances. This appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Madras High Court Letters Patent.

2. The first respondent/party-in-person raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of this appeal contending that the order of the learned single Judge was passed in exercise of criminal jurisdiction and therefore, an intra Court appeal is barred in view of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

3. In response, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant attempted to substantiate its maintainability by stating that the order in question dealt the issue in hand as a Public Interest Litigation and therefore, this appeal is maintainable.

4. The brief facts that led to the passing of the impugned order by the learned Single Judge are as follows: The first respondent had given written petitions dated 12.12.2022 and 17.12.2022 to the Commissioner of Police, Commissioner of Madurai City Corporation and the Superintending Engineer of the Public Works Department under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking for action against certain alleged nuisance created at Melur Road owing to traffic congestion and inconvenience to the public pedestrians owing to the unorganised facilities provided for parking at the appellant's stores as well as the 10th respondent's hospital premises.

5. The writ petition was listed before the learned Single Judge, who exercised powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in addition to hearing of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India dealing with the criminal proceedings. Before the learned Single Judge, the maintainability of the writ petition in criminal jurisdiction was challenged, which was negatived by holding that it is one under criminal jurisdiction and therefore, maintainable. The relevant portion of the orders reads as follows:

“14. The next contention raised on behalf of the ninth respondent that the present writ petition which contains so many allegations about the duty of the various departments of the Government cannot be treated as a Writ Petition (Crl.), that the suo motu action of this Court impleading the Director of Town and Country Planning, calling for reports from the Commissioner of Madurai Corporation about the planning permission and construction, from the District Officer, Fire and Rescue Department, are all beyond the purview of the subject roster assigned to this Bench and therefore, the ninth respondent is opposing the listing of the above writ petition before this Bench.

15. At the outset, the above contention of the ninth respondent, in the view of this Court, is ridiculous. First of all, the plea was not at all raised in the earlier hearings, but was canvassed in the final arguments. It is pertinent to note that on the basis of the allegations raised and the nature of the relief claimed, more particularly the allegation of the petitioner that he has suffered personally due to the public nuisances complained of, the above Writ Petition (Crl.) has rightly been posted before this Bench. During the hearing, considering the nature of the allegations and charges levelled and also the submission of the Counsel appearing for the Government Departments, this Court, suo motu impleaded the Director of Town and Country Planning, directed the Commissioner of Madurai Corporation and the District Officer of the Fire and Rescue department, to submit reports. When this Court was exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it has the power