'^S'^~::"G^!:^'.^,''"v:i"T^.::-:'^ ^ •fi1 ii:! ij 1 :!| i-1il HIGHKtOl.lRTOBeHI-fATTI^GARI-lAIBBIl.ASPUR ^ Divisioin Bencll; Coi^ : H6n'bl^hn^agdisHBh|lla;Aa.R.^/and Hon'bIe;Sttl'il0i|ipRaoSal'tet»G!e^l'Hnukh,»l. Writ AppeaiasiQ.245 of20Q7 APPELLANTS RESPONDENTS 1.:. Sta1:& :. -;.ctf';' ;@>itl6ttisgarh, .TMrougih Siegretary, iiE^gpartment of; Excise, Mahtralaya^ Shastri Chowk, Raipur, GjitisittisgaF|i,;:,;'::.' :; ':'::::. - : '...'1:, .. ^, 2, E^iseifeommjSsioner, Shiv ®Hawan, B^BanBEizai^l^ipyr.Ghhattisgarh 3. Go|lg<g6r',Excise^Raipur, Olihattisgarti .4. Assistant? ' SQmrnissKaner, i^^ CQll^ctol-ate ^ Bujldjng,' Raipur, CtiBattisgaFh:.'.1' .:'•:} . .:::T':[':: .:'• 5. Djstrjct^?iExc2ise,^;Officer|Colleet6rate: Bujlding, Raipur, Chhattisgarh | versus RESRONDENT PETITIONEK Sliefel'iaR ;Sahu, ^S/o? Shri- .SuBtiast-i :Sahy,|.i!ag^j|at)out,|2!54;^ears,ii:@xcise Busin^ssngan,;';R/0^4l^-8/'1305K&;|Shi^ Bhiawan,,N^w;SI')antJ;iNcigar,|RaiRfjr,| ChhattjsgarH. :•' :'::Jt ';! .: !: .'^'^ •^'.; ApDeairtoiOivisiQliai^riehiunderlSdotJorailZlfijStitl-ies^lii&atti^iltl'HlifeiiGiEii 1 S G6urf^BReilfiS:i@iisia §eii;h)]Mlialffi€giliJtBUifffiffil@8SIN '(S!ihiattisaarM:'NiglSl(MiBSffl|s|I^'^p- ';' '^ Preseht : Shri ¥iashwantSinghWMakur,(^verrmientli^Qcafe^^^% theState/aRpe|lants.^,;.^\^^i.-i,;^y;:i;f:,y:^,?^.;'[^^ Shri Rr^hant Jaya^ural<|©gnic%^voGat^iWit&^^S 'Pand^couhs^ftirlJ^^al^toiii^spo^^t.^ -it'li"t' :ti:r:^ 13R«tK@RDER 1 (f>asse(tori28tl1itji!OwCTciberJ2B07)i ^Thefb|t6wingoralorder^t^®oitrt^^ •'^::;^'';.^l:i!:f!i!;t;Iliij; JagdishBhalla,'Acting'ChiefJustii6:^y'^te^ !:|E Thisappeal'a:risesQutWtMej^rc|8i'Sateil123-p7-200?;Rasgej^by<|S)g|i||| -'*L:; •^ ^:-^: learnedSingleJydg&jBWr Re{itiC)TBNO;ZS2'1i®ef02: 'i: -^ ¥S3i'!ai a:E' liiiiisiiiiasf s iiiia llill'IPSB VsSSSKW .'<^? ^"; l^ II- Klll w» II B This intra-£;@urt appeal has; b^en filed ynder Secrtion Z^^^^^rf^ Chhattisgarh Migh^yrt(A|?RealSoDiViSiC)n;Beneh)A(rt, 2Q06,w^ follows;,- .•.;•:•';1 ':: '• \ •'.' •' 1:'. < • .i ..-::::: . ' • "2. Appeai^ thasDivj^onSemch oftlie H^ Courtfroina^uclantentgr,6rderofonedud8ei0f the^Migh; Ccilirt itiacle^ in exerc^ juKisdicAion.;- (1) An appedl slwll^^^ jydgi^entororaerpassedbyongJudgeoftheHigh. ^ Courtjn exerGise of[origjnaljuriSGlictionunderArtiGl6 226 bfthe ConstitutiQn Oflndia, toa Division Bench comprising oftwodudlfi^^tKesameHighCourt: Providedthatnosucl'iapReafshalllieagainst anjriterlocutoryorderoragainstanorderpassedin exereiseiofsupe ofthe Con^titutioridf'lnclia. - (2) ;An appeai unclSlrjsub-seetion (1)shall befiled - within 45 days ^rn^^ . bya.singleJudge: ; :;:'/.,:; ''.1:' •.: •:.: : ; :;::,1 : .'•: JProvided that any appeal may be admitted-' ^ after the ^pregcribed* perjocl of 45 • days, if the l ; petitjoher satisfies the Division Bencl-i that he tiad sufficient cause for notlpref&rring the:aRpeal within 1 such?period.::- , '":., .--: :'.i^^:f:';' .••;;;-'! - :, ':;"i!^,' Exptenatfon. - The %ct /that^jthe petitioner was misl^dl by any prcler,'praBtj(^or judgment'of the High[ !Court jn asGertajning '?OF computihg the; ^ prescribed period mly; bylsijfficsieintcause lwithin the i 'meaniri&of'thiSsuta^eiaion.:; R:,f;;:,'r (3) Li lAn appeal ,yRid8F^ut>-§e(aion• (1)i shall ibe^ ^?^ .filed;,;he^rd 'and..d^d^^in^iij||o{dan^';wjth,^ti^:j:^ procgdure^smay^i|:i^s(3tiB^IE%;theMigh'Coui^°^i!;'; A From perusal'of;thej^at>oy^iR®s"isjoj;i,j;Jt'iiSiCi'^tal| MA.i.ii'sSBKU'^ilSsfc.^-^-^giI:,;.!.'^^^-: appeal shal|1ie^iTi!a>judgnJent^||@|dt|||ag^i By?ein^fflfi^ eAsaSfSWSs .^.^^. '•••:y^^-:^1^^:^^^ ^i^ • 'i-- l^^l::;': ^^^^^^?^^ hX 'Court: in.:;'exercisig!i^pf'^®cigina|Mijyg§^iticiit|;uHyer iBfittffil ^iitiele^il^ ^. :;l!i llij •::f!'; :1: :l3S aa ^'t.s'-f" 'n^ "^ '^ 145 '•-u^ Constitutjon of India to a Division Bench comprising of two Judgesof the same High Court. The provision further providesthat nosuch appeal shall lie agairist an interlocutoryorderor against an order passed in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitutionof India. Learned Government Adyocate for the State/appellahts Submits thatthe petitipner had filed thewrit petition uoderArticle 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Howeyer, he concedes that the writ petition was filed invoking exercise of sypervisory jurisdiction under Article227 of ffie Constitution of India. He furth^submits thatalong with the prayer for exercise of supervisory jyrisdiction uhder Article 227 of the Cohstitutibn of India, since the petitioner had prayedfor issuance of'iawrit in the nature of mandamus under Artiele 226 of the Constitution of India, therefore, the appeal lies. The said question has already been decided bythisGpurtin Writ Appeal (P.R.) No.3486 of 2007 (Chhattisgarh Chenwea/ Mill Mazdoor Sangh, Labour Camp Jamul vs. Director Keystone Industrles Ud. ancf others)disposedofon 13-07-2007, iri which the Divisitin Bench observed as under: "We are Of the considered bpinion that the powers conferred by Article 226 are different in spirit from the powers GOnferred by Article 227 <}f the Constitution and theyoperateindifferentfields.ltmaybethafthe same goal can be achlieved by the appellaht by filing a writ petition under two£different proyisions of tlie CQnstitution. UnderArtiGle 226, ahorder, diFeCtioh;or prerogative writ has to be issued to the State, Authority or a person and in such proeeedings| tHe State, Authority or spersoiT;agaipst whom the relief is being sought is a neeessary Fiarty. The prdceedjngs under Article 226; of the ©onstifution-ofIhdia are ^tMe original pr6ceedingSti0weve|r, thenutilear pdint is that whether iKoriginatedfirsttime in the Migh Cpurt under -\- Article 226 only.; However, uftder Article 227, the petitioner would come before this Cburt after being aggrieved by an order orjudgment ofthe subordinate Court or Tribunal for the purpose of ascertaining whether in giving such judgment or order the subordinate Court or the Tribunal concemed has acted within the Authority of Law." The Division Bench furtherobserved as under: "It has already begn referred to hereinabove that the controversy cloesn^ciriginate before We High Court. Thus,fromtheappreciati6noftheabovedisGussion,it can be said that no writ appeal is maintainable in cases where the eontroversy does not originate before the Migh Court. The Rule js basetl on the logic that Labour Court is acting as Tribunal having already analytically examihed the matter and tested itin the background of the taw laid down. In such circumstances, in order to get finalitythe decisionpf learned Single Judge be taken as final and as such the writappeal isnotmaintainable." We called upon learned Govemment Advocate fof the State/appeltaritStosubstantiate ffie ease to the extentthat the petitioner had filed the writ petition befbr®the leamed Single Judge fpr exercise of original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitutipn of India. jSince, leamedGovemmentAdvocatefortheState/appellantshasalsoconceded that the writ petition was filed forexercise of sup^ryisory jurisdictioii under Article227oftheConstitutiont)flnclia,hecouldinotsubstantiate.BTatth® writ petition was filed fbr exercise of original jurisdiction under Ar|ii5|e 226 of the Constitution of India. Hbwever, leamed ©ovemmentAdvopate lor the State/appellants relies u|»nA^tx>Ama( flfawspap^s PvfcjiJLftt vs. Shantafprasao^AIR 1999 SC 2423. ^ j lntheljghtofaboyedisey^ion,thevvritappea|isnotmaintainable. Accordingly, itisdismissed. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Sd/- Acting ChiefJustice •\ '>», i;