An intra-court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is not maintainable against an order passed by a Single Judge in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if the underlying subject matter of the dispute pertains to criminal jurisdiction or proceedings.

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)

1.This matter has been posted today under the caption “for maintainability”, following the Office Note/Objection raised in this regard with regard to the maintainability of the proposed writ appeal in W.A.Sr.No.145040 of 2025.

2. The proposed writ appeal is against the order passed by the Writ Court dated 28.02.2025 in W.P.No.14871 of 2024. In the said writ petition, the Government Order in Ref.No.G.O.(1D)No.428, dated 20.12.2023, passed by the Additional Secretary to Government, Public (Foreigners-I) Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, was under challenge.

3. A First Information Report, Hereinafter referred as “FIR”. has been registered in Crime No.7 of 2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Hereinafter referred as “IPC”., Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000, Hereinafter referred as “the IT Act”. and Sections 14(a), 14(b) and 14(c) of the Foreigners Act, 1946, Hereinafter referred as “the Foreigners Act”. against the present appellant. The appellant was arrayed as the second accused along with yet another accused, who stood as the first accused, namely, James Osebhohier Lawrence. Along with the present appellant, both were since impleaded in the said criminal cases, which are pending, where, even though if he could get bail, based on which, he cannot be released as he is a foreigner. Therefore, the Government, by exercising its power under Section 3(2)(e) of the Foreigners Act, has passed the order which was impugned before the Writ Court, that is Ref.No.G.O.(1D)No.428.

4. When that was questioned before the Writ Court, the same was rejected by dismissing the said writ petition as writ petition (Criminal) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the order of the Writ Court dated 28.02.2025, which is impugned in the main writ appeal.

5. As against any order passed by the Writ Court in any criminal matter or by exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution with regard to any criminal matter, no intra-Court appeal would lie under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. Since this being a settled law, the Office has raised objection with regard to the maintainability of the present writ appeal in W.A.Sr.No.145040 of 2025. That is how this matter is placed before us to examine the maintainability of the proposed writ appeal.

6. We have heard Mr.S.K.Mageshwaran, learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

7. A Division Bench of this Court has already made an elaborate order in a similar circumstances in the case of S.Gugan vs. The Commissioner of Customs , Rajaji Salai and Ors., W.A.No.1899 of 2019; Dated: 06.09.2024. where, one of us (RSKJ) is a party. The very same question that arose in the said writ appeal, which was raised by the respondents therein, that is on behalf of the Commissioner of Customs, is that, an intra-Court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent would not lie against an order passed by granting administrative sanction under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

8. In the said judgment in S.Gugan's case (cited supra), the decision of various High Courts, as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court, especially in the cases of Ram Kishan Fauji vs. State of Haryana , (2017) 5 SCC 533; Jasbir Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2022) 13 SCC 462; C.Shivasankaran vs. Foreign Regional Registration Officer and Ors., MANU/TN/5295/2020; Ajay Kumar Bishnoi vs. Inspector of Police and Ors., W.A.No.2167 of 2022; Dated: 12.10.2022. and D.Kumar vs. Raichand Daga and Ors., W.A.Sr.No.44351 of 2020; Dated: 03.08.2020. are relied upon and ultimately, the Division Bench in S.Gugan's case (cited supra) has passe