( 1 ) WE have heard counsel on the question of maintainability of the appeal. Shri Mittal submits that the view taken by us is in direct conflict with the view taken by other High Courts and he has cited two decisions in that regard.

( 2 ) SHANTI Devi's case is one which is reported in AIR 1972 Punj and Har 65 (FB) while the other case is that of Delhi Municipality which is reported in AIR 1970 Delhi 37 (FB ). In both cases the only point which their Lordships considered was interpretation of the word "judgement" which occurs in Cl. 10 of the Letters Patent. The law which was not placed before their Lordships is that which we considered in L. P. A. No. 5 of 1987 (reported in 1988 MPLJ 78) (Shrimant Rajmata Vijayaraje Scindia v. Shrimant Maharaja Madhaorao Scindia ). That has rather paramount importance to the question of maintainability of the instant appeal. The question indeed is, whether the scope of the statutory right of appeal can be enlarged by a subordinate legislation or even in any other manner, except by a law competently enacted in that regard.

( 3 ) WE have taken the view that S. 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act entitled the aggrieved person to lodge only one appeal in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document