ORDER

Present appeal has been filed u/S.2(1) of M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 (for brevity “Adhiniyam of 2005”) against final order dated 10.02.2023 passed in MP. No.5414/2018 by learned Single Judge dismissing said petition, which had been preferred against an order of Board of Revenue passed on

22.09.2018.

2. The objection raised by Registry of this Court is of maintainability of this appeal in view of bar in Section 2(1) of Adhiniyam of 2005.

2.1 The objection is that the power exercised by learned Single Judge was not in his original jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution but under supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 and, therefore, in view of the statutory bar, present appeal is not maintainable.

3. To counter the aforesaid objection, learned counsel for appellant, Shri Shah has relied upon decision of Apex Court in State of M.P. & Others vs. Visan Kumar Shiv Charan Lal reported in (2008) 15 SCC 233, which inter alia holds thus:- “17. From the aforesaid enunciation of law it is quite vivid and luminescent that the pleadings in the writ petition, nature of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, character and the contour of the order, directions issued, nomenclature given, the jurisdictional prospective (sic perspective) in the constitutional context are to be perceived. It cannot be said in a hypertechnical manner that an order passed in a writ petition, if there is assail to the order emerging from the inferior tribunal or subordinate courts has to be treated all the time for all purposes to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Phraseology used in exercise of original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in Section 2 of the Act cannot be given a restricted and constricted meaning because an order passed in a writ petition can tantamount to an order under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India and it would depend upon the real nature of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. To elaborate; whether the learned Single Judge has exercised his jurisdiction under Article 226 or under Article 227 or both would depend upon various aspects and many a facet as has been emphasised in the aforequoted decisions of the Apex Court. The pleadings, as has been indicated hereinabove, also assume immense significance. As has been held in Surya Dev Rai (supra) a writ of certiorari can be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution against an order of a tribunal or an order passed by the subordinate court. In quintessentiality, it cannot be put in a straitjacket formula that any order of the learned Single Judge that deals with an order arising from an inferior tribunal or the subordinate court is an order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and not an order under Article 226 of the Constitution. It would not be an overemphasis to state that an order in a writ petition can fit into the subtle contour of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in a composite manner and they can coincide, coexist, overlap, imbricate. In this context it is apt to note that there may be cases where the learned Single Judge may feel disposed or inclined to issue a writ to do full and complete justice because it is to be borne in mind that Article 226 of the Constitution is fundamentally a repository and reservoir of justice based on equity and good conscience. It will depend upon factual matrix of the case.

25. Upon a review of decided cases and a survey of the occasions, wherein the High Courts have exercised jurisdiction to command a writ of certiorari or to exercise supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 in the given facts and circumstances in a variety of cases, it seems that the distinction between the two jurisdictions stands almost obliterated in practice. Probably, this is the reason why it has become customary with the lawyers labelling their petitions as one common under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, though such practice has been