Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Order passed by Single Judge under Article 227 - Not Appealable The consensus across multiple judgments is that orders passed by a Single Judge of a High Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution are not appealable via Letters Patent or intra-court appeals. This is because Article 227 confers supervisory jurisdiction, which is discretionary and not akin to an appellate jurisdiction ["SRI A RAGHUPATHY BHAT vs THE BOARD OF MANAGEMENT OF - Karnataka"], ["Shahu Shikshan Prasarak Mandal VS Lata P. Kore - Supreme Court"], ["DELANTHABETTU KANYANA SHAUL HAMEED vs K. MOHAMMED IQBAL - Kerala"], ["Vinay Mohan vs Nidhi Singh - Allahabad"], ["PALITANA MUNICIPALITY THROUGH THE CHIEF OFFICER VS SANGHVI SARDARMAL SESHMAL TRUST PRAKASH BHUVAN JAIN DHARAMSHALA FAMILY TRUST PAKASH BHUVAN - Gujarat"], ["Dahyabhai M. Solanki VS State of Gujarat - Gujarat"], ["NIRUPABEN NATAWARLAL MADHU V/s ANILBHAI DAHYABHAI LEUA - Gujarat"], ["Chaitra, S/o. Late Lachhinder VS Board of Revenue, Gwalior (Now Raipur), Through Its Chairman, District Raipur Chhattisgarh - Chhattisgarh"], ["Perna Ravindranath Thakur VS Registrar (Vigilance), High Court of Telangana - Telangana"], ["VAJARA YOJNA SEED FARM VS PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT II - Allahabad"], ["CENTRAL MODERN EDUCATION SOCIETY and ANR vs SMT.MANJU CHOUDHARY - Rajasthan"], ["Valsamma Chacko VS Leelamma Joseph, Wife Of Joseph. J. - Kerala"], ["Revaben VS Vinubhai Purshottambhai Patel - Gujarat"], ["CENTRAL MODERN EDUCATION SOCIETY and ANR vs SMT.MANJU CHOUDHARY - Rajasthan"], ["REVABEN WD/O AMBALAL MOTIBHAI VS VINUBHAI PURSHOTTAMBHAI PATEL - Gujarat"], ["PATHAN UMRAVKHAN AMIRKHAN VS SHAKINABEN W/d. UMRAVMIYA - Gujarat"], ["High Court Bar Association Through its Secretary, Chhattisgarh VS State of Chhattisgarh - Chhattisgarh"], ["Rajeev Chaturvedi S/o Shri D. S. Chaturvedi VS Commissioner, Jaipur Development Authority - Rajasthan"].
Legal Basis and Rules Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and Rules of High Courts clarify that appeals from judgments of Single Judges are only maintainable if the order arises from proceedings under Article 226, not Article 227. Orders under Article 227 are considered supervisory, and no appeal is permissible ["Shahu Shikshan Prasarak Mandal VS Lata P. Kore - Supreme Court"], ["PALITANA MUNICIPALITY THROUGH THE CHIEF OFFICER VS SANGHVI SARDARMAL SESHMAL TRUST PRAKASH BHUVAN JAIN DHARAMSHALA FAMILY TRUST PAKASH BHUVAN - Gujarat"], ["Dahyabhai M. Solanki VS State of Gujarat - Gujarat"], ["NIRUPABEN NATAWARLAL MADHU V/s ANILBHAI DAHYABHAI LEUA - Gujarat"], ["Valsamma Chacko VS Leelamma Joseph, Wife Of Joseph. J. - Kerala"].
Judicial Precedents and Rationale Courts have consistently held that an order under Article 227 is not an order of a tribunal or court exercising original or appellate jurisdiction but a supervisory order. Therefore, such orders are not subject to appeal because they do not involve a final judgment or decree ["SRI A RAGHUPATHY BHAT vs THE BOARD OF MANAGEMENT OF - Karnataka"], ["DELANTHABETTU KANYANA SHAUL HAMEED vs K. MOHAMMED IQBAL - Kerala"], ["Vinay Mohan vs Nidhi Singh - Allahabad"], ["PALITANA MUNICIPALITY THROUGH THE CHIEF OFFICER VS SANGHVI SARDARMAL SESHMAL TRUST PRAKASH BHUVAN JAIN DHARAMSHALA FAMILY TRUST PAKASH BHUVAN - Gujarat"], ["CENTRAL MODERN EDUCATION SOCIETY and ANR vs SMT.MANJU CHOUDHARY - Rajasthan"].
Exceptions and Clarifications If a Single Judge erroneously exercises jurisdiction under Article 226 instead of Article 227, or issues a writ of certiorari without proper jurisdiction, then an intra-court appeal may be maintainable. However, if the order is genuinely under Article 227, no appeal lies ["SRI A RAGHUPATHY BHAT vs THE BOARD OF MANAGEMENT OF - Karnataka"], ["PATHAN UMRAVKHAN AMIRKHAN VS SHAKINABEN W/d. UMRAVMIYA - Gujarat"].
Conclusion The prevailing legal principle is that orders passed by a Single Judge under Article 227 of the Constitution are not appealable under Letters Patent or intra-court appeals. Such orders are supervisory in nature, and the remedy against them is typically a review or a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, if permissible ["SRI A RAGHUPATHY BHAT vs THE BOARD OF MANAGEMENT OF - Karnataka"], ["VAJARA YOJNA SEED FARM VS PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT II - Allahabad"].
References:- ["SRI A RAGHUPATHY BHAT vs THE BOARD OF MANAGEMENT OF - Karnataka"]- ["Shahu Shikshan Prasarak Mandal VS Lata P. Kore - Supreme Court"]- ["DELANTHABETTU KANYANA SHAUL HAMEED vs K. MOHAMMED IQBAL - Kerala"]- ["Vinay Mohan vs Nidhi Singh - Allahabad"]- ["PALITANA MUNICIPALITY THROUGH THE CHIEF OFFICER VS SANGHVI SARDARMAL SESHMAL TRUST PRAKASH BHUVAN JAIN DHARAMSHALA FAMILY TRUST PAKASH BHUVAN - Gujarat"]- ["Dahyabhai M. Solanki VS State of Gujarat - Gujarat"]- ["NIRUPABEN NATAWARLAL MADHU V/s ANILBHAI DAHYABHAI LEUA - Gujarat"]- ["Chaitra, S/o. Late Lachhinder VS Board of Revenue, Gwalior (Now Raipur), Through Its Chairman, District Raipur Chhattisgarh - Chhattisgarh"]- ["Perna Ravindranath Thakur VS Registrar (Vigilance), High Court of Telangana - Telangana"]- ["VAJARA YOJNA SEED FARM VS PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT II - Allahabad"]- ["CENTRAL MODERN EDUCATION SOCIETY and ANR vs SMT.MANJU CHOUDHARY - Rajasthan"]- ["Valsamma Chacko VS Leelamma Joseph, Wife Of Joseph. J. - Kerala"]- ["Revaben VS Vinubhai Purshottambhai Patel - Gujarat"]- ["CENTRAL MODERN EDUCATION SOCIETY and ANR vs SMT.MANJU CHOUDHARY - Rajasthan"]- ["REVABEN WD/O AMBALAL MOTIBHAI VS VINUBHAI PURSHOTTAMBHAI PATEL - Gujarat"]- ["PATHAN UMRAVKHAN AMIRKHAN VS SHAKINABEN W/d. UMRAVMIYA - Gujarat"]- ["High Court Bar Association Through its Secretary, Chhattisgarh VS State of Chhattisgarh - Chhattisgarh"]- ["Rajeev Chaturvedi S/o Shri D. S. Chaturvedi VS Commissioner, Jaipur Development Authority - Rajasthan"]
In the realm of education law, disputes often escalate through tribunals to High Courts. A common query arises: Is a writ appeal maintainable against an order passed by a single judge under Article 227 of the Constitution concerning an Education Appellate Tribunal? This question touches on the delicate balance between supervisory and writ jurisdictions of High Courts, particularly in cases involving educational institutions, appointments, seniority, or disciplinary actions. Understanding this can prevent procedural missteps for litigants, lawyers, and educational management.
Article 227 provides supervisory powers to High Courts over tribunals, but it's not an appellate jurisdiction. Orders under this article are typically not appealable via intra-court writ appeals, unlike those under Article 226. This post delves into the criteria, drawing from established case law and principles. Shashi Sehdev VS Narender Kumar Sharma - 2022 0 Supreme(Del) 1944Ghewar Chand VS Pukhraj - 2010 0 Supreme(Raj) 1780
Article 226 empowers High Courts to issue writs like certiorari or mandamus for enforcing fundamental rights or other legal rights. Its scope is expansive, allowing interference if orders are illegal, arbitrary, or contrary to law. Writ appeals against single judge orders under Article 226 are generally maintainable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, absent specific bars. State Of Gujarat VS Arjunbhai Amrutlal Nayak - 2024 0 Supreme(Guj) 364
In contrast, Article 227 is purely supervisory. High Courts ensure tribunals act within jurisdiction and follow due process, but they do not reappreciate evidence or substitute findings unless perverse or illegal. As held, In exercising the supervisory power under Art. 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or the Tribunal. ... It is also not permissible to a High Court on a petition filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution to review or re-weigh the evidence upon which the inferior Court or Tribunal purports to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in the decision. AMRUTBHAI HANSRAJBHAI RABADIA (DECEASED) VS SANCHALAK/PRESIDENT - 2022 Supreme(Guj) 1400
Interference under Article 227 is sparing, reserved for grave errors, natural justice violations, or jurisdictional excess. Chandra Prabha Mahajan vs Praveen Sharma - Delhi (2022)Ghewar Chand VS Pukhraj - 2010 0 Supreme(Raj) 1780
The key test is whether the single judge exercised Article 226 (substantive/merits-based) or Article 227 (supervisory/jurisdictional). If the order corrects jurisdictional errors or procedural flaws, it's under Article 227 and typically not appealable. Substantive orders on merits lean towards Article 226, making appeals viable. The substance—pleadings, reliefs, and language—decides. RAM RAJ SHUKLA VS DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOL FATEHPUR - 1995 0 Supreme(All) 1122Punjab National Bank VS Purewell & Associates Ltd. - 2001 0 Supreme(Raj) 949Sh Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji VS State of Gujarat - 2015 5 Supreme 134
For instance, Against the order passed by the learned Single Judge under Article 227 of the Constitution, this writ appeal is not maintainable. Badri Prasad Tiwari VS State of M. P. - 2021 Supreme(MP) 594
Interlocutory or discretionary orders under Article 227 are rarely appealable unless manifestly perverse. Final orders on substantive rights may qualify if under Article 226. KAUSHAL KISHORE SING VS SHUBH HARAN MISRA - 1995 0 Supreme(All) 939KANAK PROJECTS LTD. VS AMRITA BAZAR PATRIKA PVT. LTD. - 2006 0 Supreme(Cal) 725
Appeals lie for jurisdictional overreach or gross lapses, but not for merits unless erroneous. The court emphasized the limited scope of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 and the principle that judicial review is not concerned with the correctness of the findings of fact as long as they are reasonably supported by evidence. AMRUTBHAI HANSRAJBHAI RABADIA (DECEASED) VS SANCHALAK/PRESIDENT - 2022 Supreme(Guj) 1400
Clause 15 of Letters Patent bars intra-court appeals against pure Article 227 orders, with exceptions for substantive Article 226 reliefs. Ghewar Chand VS Pukhraj - 2010 0 Supreme(Raj) 1780
Education cases—management authority, appointments, or discipline—involve factual matrices where Article 227 courts show restraint. Reappreciation is avoided absent perversity. In one case under Gujarat Secondary Education Act, the court upheld tribunal removal orders, stressing, judicial review is not concerned with the correctness of the findings of fact as long as they are reasonably supported by evidence and arrived at through a fair process. AMRUTBHAI HANSRAJBHAI RABADIA (DECEASED) VS SANCHALAK/PRESIDENT - 2022 Supreme(Guj) 1400
Similarly, appeals against supervisory dismissals in education tribunals are often dismissed as non-maintainable. State Of Gujarat VS Arjunbhai Amrutlal Nayak - 2024 0 Supreme(Guj) 364Arun S. Nair S/o Sukumaran Nair vs Manager Mahatma Gandhi Memorial High School, Poozhanad - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 2852
The Supreme Court clarifies Article 227 is not appellate: interference only for perversity, illegality, or no jurisdiction. No evidence reweighing. (Estralla Rubber, Garment Craft) Shashi Sehdev VS Narender Kumar Sharma - 2022 0 Supreme(Del) 1944Ghewar Chand VS Pukhraj - 2010 0 Supreme(Raj) 1780
India, appeal is not maintainable... passed by writ court in the writ petition filed under Article 227. CENTRAL MODERN EDUCATION SOCIETY and ANR vs SMT.MANJU CHOUDHARY Appeals against discretionary Article 227 orders fail unless jurisdictional flaws exist. RAM RAJ SHUKLA VS DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOL FATEHPUR - 1995 0 Supreme(All) 1122
In another, a writ petition styled under both 226/227 was remanded to treat as 226, allowing appeal. State Bank of India VS Kinship Services India Pvt. Ltd. - 2013 Supreme(Ker) 526
He further contends that the order passed by the two concurrent courts should not be disturbed in a writ appeal... an appeal is not maintainable as the order has been passed by the learned Single Judge under Article 227. Subash Chandra Biswal VS Bamadev Patra - 2019 Supreme(Ori) 27
Where orders lack inherent jurisdiction, like Registrar actions not as 'court,' appeals succeed. Badri Prasad Tiwari VS State of M. P. - 2021 Supreme(MP) 594 In society disputes, substantive writs under 226 sustain appeals. Shri Suprabhat Chauksey VS State of M. P. - 2012 Supreme(MP) 1082
| Criterion | Explanation | Sources ||----------|-------------|---------|| Order Nature | Substantive (226) vs. Supervisory (227) | Ghewar Chand VS Pukhraj - 2010 0 Supreme(Raj) 1780Shashi Sehdev VS Narender Kumar Sharma - 2022 0 Supreme(Del) 1944 || Jurisdiction | Merits review (appealable) vs. Jurisdictional (not) | RAM RAJ SHUKLA VS DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOL FATEHPUR - 1995 0 Supreme(All) 1122Shashi Sehdev VS Narender Kumar Sharma - 2022 0 Supreme(Del) 1944 || Perversity/Illegality | Only if manifest | Shashi Sehdev VS Narender Kumar Sharma - 2022 0 Supreme(Del) 1944Ghewar Chand VS Pukhraj - 2010 0 Supreme(Raj) 1780 || Statutory Bars | Letters Patent Clause 15 bars 227 orders | Ghewar Chand VS Pukhraj - 2010 0 Supreme(Raj) 1780 || Evidence Reappreciation | Not under 227 | Shashi Sehdev VS Narender Kumar Sharma - 2022 0 Supreme(Del) 1944Ghewar Chand VS Pukhraj - 2010 0 Supreme(Raj) 1780 |
Writ appeals against single judge orders under Article 227 in education appellate tribunal matters are generally not maintainable unless involving jurisdictional errors, perversity, or substantive Article 226 exercise. Courts emphasize supervisory restraint, avoiding merits dives.
Key Takeaways:- Examine order substance, not label.- Seek appeals cautiously; consider SLP to Supreme Court.- In education, prove gross illegality for success.
This is general information based on precedents and not specific legal advice. Consult a lawyer for case-specific guidance. Cases evolve with facts.
The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that it is the order of the Tribunal that was challenged before the learned Single Judge and therefore, this writ appeal would be maintainable, inasmuch as the petition was filed both under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. ... Therefore, no writ appeal would lie against a judgment passed on a petition under #HL_START....
Rule 18 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules read with clause 15 of the Letters Patent provides for appeal to the Division Bench of the High Court from a judgment of the learned Single Judge passed on a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. ... Rule 18 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules read with clause 15 of the Letters Patent provides for appeal to the Division Bench of the High....
We are unable to agree with the High Court that the learned Single Judge had passed order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and that the appeal was not maintainable”. ... The Division Bench of the High Court had held that since the petition before the Single Judge was under Art.227 of the Constitution, an appeal at the behest of th....
the writ petition was one filed under Article 227 it was also one under Article 226 as facts justify or it ought to have been filed under Article 226 only and, hence, the Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against an order passed thereon?" ... The appeal is directed against the judgement and order dated 18.7.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge#H....
Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act does not provide an appeal against the judgment or order passed by a learned Single Judge in a petition filed under Article 227 and intra-court appeal would lie only if the judgment or order is passed in a petition filed under Article 226. ... 227, and not by way of writ under Arti....
Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act does not provide an appeal against the judgment or order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in a petition under Article 227 and an appeal will lie if the judgment or order is passed in petition under Article 226. ... Article 227, and not by way of writ under #HL....
In exercising the supervisory power under Art. 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or the Tribunal. ... It is also not permissible to a High Court on a petition filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution to review or re-weigh the evidence upon which the inferior Court or Tribunal purports to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in the decision.” ......
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 ... However, if a learned Single Judge, in purported exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, issues a #HL....
Special appeal against the order passed in writ petition arising out of order of Election Tribunal is not maintainable. Under Section 12-C of U. P. ... In the aforesaid case the argument which was raised before the Division Bench was to the effect that special appeal would be competent only from an order passed in a writ petition which is required to be heard by Single#....
India, appeal is not maintainable. ... passed by writ court in the writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of learned Single Judge passed in exercise of the power Article 226, as in the case of power under Article 226 SBCWP Nos.3928/2017 & 3926/2017 whereby the writ petitions p style="position:absolute;
Against the order passed by the learned Single Judge under Article 227 of the Constitution, this writ appeal is not maintainable. The learned Single Judge treated the said petition under Article 227 of the Constitution and consciously exercised his power under Article 227 of the Constitution.
He further contends that the order passed by the two concurrent courts should not be disturbed in a writ appeal and prays to dismiss the writ appeal. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that an appeal is not maintainable as the order has been passed by the learned Single Judge under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Referring to provisions of G.R.C.O. (Civil) Volume-I, he contended that the deposit should have made as a peremptory deposit and as admittedly the deposit has been made beyond the period of limitation prescribed, there has been....
We have already culled-out the purport of Rule 5 in our judgment in the case of Intezar Hussain & another v. State of Uttarakhand & others, reported in 2015 (2) UD 261, where we have taken the view that, among judgments which are rendered non-appeal able, is a judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge in a writ petition filed under Article 226 or 227, where an order is passed by a Tribunal, Arbitrator or court purporting to act under any U.P. enactment or an enactment by Parliament purporting to be in the exercise of legislative entries in the Concurrent List or in the State List. If the R....
We, accordingly, allow the appeal and remit the matter to the High Court to treat the petition as one under Article 226 of the Constitution and to dispose of W.A.182 of 2006 in accordance with law, within two months from the date of communication of this order. The Division Bench of the High Court appears to have not taken into consideration the fact that the petition had been styled as a writ petition under Article 226 as well and that the frame of the petition was that of a writ petition as would also be evident from the prayers made therein. We are unable to agree with the High ....
2009 by issuing writ of certiorari while exercising original writ jurisdiction. Thus, by no stretch of imagination the impugned order of the learned Single Judge can be termed as an order passed under Article 227 of Constitution, thereby rendering the present writ appeal maintainable. The decision of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Jaidev Siddha (DR.) and Others Vs. Jaiprakash Siddha and others reported in 2007 (3) MPLJ 595 cited by the learned counsel for the respondents is of no avail to the petitioner since W.P. No. 6019/09 was a petition under Article 226 of the....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
