DIPAK MISRA, J. :- (For himself and on behalf of Hon'ble the Chief Justice, Abhay Gohil and S. K. Gangele, JJ.)-

INTRODUCTORY BACKDROP

Questioning the assailability and substantiality of the order passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 5731/2006 the present writ appeal was preferred under Section 2 of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, (for short 'the 2005 Adhiniyam'). When the same was placed before a Division Bench for the purpose of admission on 20-8-2007 the Bench hearing the appeal took note of the decision rendered in the case of Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2007 (II) MPJR 229, wherein a view was expressed to the effect that an order passed by the learned single Judge while dealing with the sustainability of the order passed by the Board of Revenue is delineation under supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India and not in exercise of original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and the dictum propounded in Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007 (2) MPJR (FB) 361 : 2007 (3) MPLJ 595, AIR 2007 MP 269, whereby the view expressed in Rama and Co. (supra) was overruled, and further noticed the order passed by the Apex Court in the Special Leave Petition affirming the order passed in Rama and Co. (supra) and directed the matter to be listed on 23-8-2007. Thereafter the Division Bench hearing the appeal on admission on the subsequent date thought it condign and seemly to refer the matter to a larger Bench regard being had to the far reaching effect and impact of the controversy involved because of the order passed by the Apex Court in the Special Leave Petition and the effect of the Full Bench decision in the said context. That is how the matter has travelled to the larger Bench to be dwelled upon with regard to the scope of maintainability of the Writ Appeal under the 2005 Adhiniyam.

PRELUDE IN PARTICULARITY

2. M. P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Letters Patent Appeals Samapti) Adhiniyam, 1981 was passed by the State Legislature which received assent of the President on 21-6-1981. In Balkrishna Das v. Perfect Pottery Co. Ltd. Jabalpur, AIR 1985 MP 42 (FB) 1981 Adhiniyam was declared ultra vires and it was further held that the said Act does not extinguish the right of appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The decision rendered in the case of Balkrishna Das (supra) and other decisions from the Bombay High Court travelled to the Apex Court. The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Jamshed N. Gazdar v. State of Maharashtra etc., AIR 2005 SC 862, upheld the validity of 1981 Adhiniyam.

3. After the constitutional validity of the 1981 Adhiniyam was sustained the Letters Patent Appeals pending in this High Court, being not maintainable, were dismissed. At that juncture the State Legislature enacted the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhinyam, 2005 (Act No. 14 of 2006). The said Act was brought into existence to provide for an appeal from a judgment or order passed by one Judge of the High Court in exercise of the original jurisdiction to a Division Bench of the same High Court. Section 2 of the Act, to which we shall advert to in detail at a later stage, postulates that an appeal shall lie from a judgment or order passed by one Judge of the High Court in exercise of original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to a Division Bench comprising of two Judges of the same High Court. It has also been provided therein that no such appeal shall lie against an interlocutory order or against an order passed in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

4. Keeping in view the language employed under the 2005 Adhiniyam in Lakhan Lal Sonkar v. Gun Carriage Factory, 2007 (1) MPHT 335 wherein the legal propriety of the order passed by the learned single Judge in a writ petition arising out of the award passed by the Labour Court