LexSHAHU SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL AND ANR. versus LATA P. KORE & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 13 S.C.R. 804 A SHAHU SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL AND ANR. v. LATA P. KORE & ORS. (Civil appeal No. 5801 of 2008) B SEPTEMBER 23, 2008 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] Letters Patent Appeal - Appeal against dismissal of writ c petition - Maintainability of - Held: Though petition filed un- der Article 226, from the grounds raised in the writ petition it is clear that petition is not only under Article 227 but also under Article 226 - J;he petition justified the appellant filing applica- tion both under Articles 226 and 227 - However, High Court D while dismissing LPA did not consider the issues as also the ..- . applicable provisions - Thus, matt~r remitted to High Court - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 and 227. Aggrieved, appellant filed writ petition challenging the order of the tribunal. ThEt Single Judge of High Court E dismissed the petition on the ground that the same was not maintainable. Appellant then filed Letters Patent Ap- peal which was also dismissed. Hence the present ap- peal. F Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter, the Court HELD: 1.1 In the instant case, apart from the fact that the petition is labeled under Article 226 of the Constitu- tion of India, it is clear that the grounds raised in the peti- G tion suggest that the petition is not only under Article 227 . but also _uoC,ler Article 226 of the Constitution. It is to be seen that in the grounds raised against the order of the · · tribunal, it is specifically suggested that the order passed by the tribunal was arbitrary, unreasonable, unjust and H 804 SHAHU SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL &ANR. v. 805 LATA P. KORE & ORS. perverse. After reading the writ petition it is clear that the A contentions raised and the facts stated in the petition jus- tify the appellant to file an application both under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. [Para 12] [8118-E] 1,2 The effect of the provisions and the decisions referred to does not appear to have been considered by B the High Court while holding that the Letters Patent Ap- peal was not maintainable. Therefore, the matter is remit- ted to the High Court to consider the issues, the appli- cable proVlsions and the decisions afresh. [Paras 1~ and 14] [811-E-F] C Umaji Keshao Meshram v. Radhikabai, Widow of Anandrao Banap11rkar and Anr. 1986 Supp. SCC 401; Sushilabai Laxminarayan Mud/iyar and' Ors. v. Niha/chand Waghajibhai Shaha and Ors. 1993 Supp. (1) SCC 11; Mavji D C. Lakum v. Cehtral Bank of India 2008(7) SCALE 32 - re- ferred to. Case Law Reference 1986 Supp. SCC 401 Referred to. 1993 Supp. (1) SCC 11 Referred to. 2()08(7) SCALE 32 Referred to. Para 6, 10 Para 6, 10 Para 10 CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5801 of 2008 From the final Judgment and Order dated 11 /12/2003 and 13/1/2005 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in W.P; No. 6195/2003 and LP.A. (Stamp) No. 10381/2004 respec- tively E F Siddharth Bhatnagar, Pawan KUl'harBansal and T. Mahipal G for the Appellants.· Makarand D, Adkar, Vijay Kumar, Vishwajit Singh, Arun ,_ Pedneker, Sanjay V. Kharde, Asha G. Nair and V.N. Raghupathy for the Respondents. H 806 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R. A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dismissing the Letters Patent B Appeal filed by the appellant. Writ Petition filed by the appellant was dismissed on the ground that the same was not maintain- able. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the im- pugned ord1:lr of the Division Bench is clearly unsustainable. C Reference is made to Rules 3 & 18 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 (in short the 'Rules') with the amended Letters Patent of the High Court of Bombay, 1865 (in short the 'Letters Patent'). It is submitted that the Division Bench did not take note of what has been stated by several judgments D of this Court. E 4. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand supported the impugned judgment of the High Court. 5. Rules 3, 18(41) and the proviso 18(44) read as follows: "3. Appeal to be placed before Division Bench for admission -Appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent shall be placed for admission before a Division Bench. 18. Single Judge's powers to finally dispose of applica- F tions under Article 226 or 227 - No
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.