IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1180 of 2025 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13058 of 2025 ==========================================================

NIRUPABEN NATAWARLAL MADHU Versus ANILBHAI DAHYABHAI LEUA & ANR.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR GIRISH M DAS(2323) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY Date : 01/12/2025

ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)

1. There are repeated leave notes and sick notes of the learned advocate after presentation of the present appeal on 06.11.2025, the matter was posted today making it clear that no further adjournment would be granted and no sick note or leave note would be honored. Today, the same Counsel Mr. Girish M. Das appearing for the appellant has sent the leave note. We, therefore, do not find any reason to honor the same. This intra court appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation V. Firoze M. Mogal, reported in 2013 SCC OnLine Guj 8638, has held that Letter Patent Appeal against an order passed by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable.

Firoze M. Mogal (Supra) held a under :-

“203. Having bestowed our thoughtful consideration to the core issue, it is clear that if the Single Judge has exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution by issuing a writ of certiorari, and in a given case with an ancillary relief in the form of a writ of mandamus, a Letters Patent Appeal is clearly maintainable under Clause 15. However, if in a given case the petition is only under Article 227 of the Constitution and the Single Judge has modified the order to a certain extent in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction, or to put it in other words, in exercise of superintending powers and if the ancillary relief is also granted by way of some directions, then such directions could not be said to have been issued by way of a writ of mandamus so as to make a Letters Patent Appeal maintainable against such an order. The reason is plain and simple. It is the main relief which the Court grants is important. If the main relief granted by the Court is in exercise of its superintending powers under Article 227 of the Constitution, then all other directions ancillary in nature will remain in exercise of superintending powers and no Letters Patent Appeal would be maintainable.

262. To put it in other words, once a petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and while entertaining such a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, if the court allows a petition by setting aside the order impugned, then against such an order no LPA would lie.

xii) If a learned Single Judge, in exercise of a purported power under Article 227 of the Constitution modifies the order of Tribunal/Authority or Court below and thereby partly allows a petition to a certain extent, then in such circumstances, it could not be said that the Court exercised its certiorari jurisdiction and no appeal will be maintainable against such order in view of the specific bar created under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent itself

263. However, if a learned Single Judge, in purported exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, issues a writ of certiorari, although the same is not maintainable, an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent would nevertheless be maintainable against such order.

264. To put it in other words, take a case where a party on his own invokes supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and in such a petition, the C