IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 124 OF 2008 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 124 OF 2008 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 124 OF 2008 IN IN IN WRIT PETITION NO. 7309 OF WRIT PETITION NO. 7309 OF WRIT PETITION NO. 7309 OF 2007 2007 2007 Kantilal Kuwarji Dhanu & Ors. ...Appellants (Orig.Petitioners) V/s. Airport Authority of India & Ors. ...Respondents (Orig.Respondents Mr.S. Anney, Sr.Counsel i/b. Mr.A.B. Vagyani for the Appellants. Mr.P.K.Samdhani, Sr.Counsel i/b. Ms.Rekha Rajgopal for Respondent No.1. CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. AND CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. AND CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. AND V.M. KANADE, J. V.M. KANADE, J. V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : JUNE 30, 2008 DATED : JUNE 30, 2008 DATED : JUNE 30, 2008 P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. In the present appeal, the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 18th January, 2008 is impugned. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent at the very outset and without referring to the merits of the case raised preliminary objection that in view of the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra V/s. Kusum w/o. Charudatta & State of Maharashtra V/s. Kusum w/o. Charudatta & State of Maharashtra V/s. Kusum w/o. Charudatta & - 2 - Ors. Ors. Ors., reported in 1981 Maharashtra Law Journal 93, reported in 1981 Maharashtra Law Journal 93, reported in 1981 Maharashtra Law Journal 93, present appeal is not maintainable. He refers to the petition which was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as well as the prayer made under the said provision. In fact, in the impugned order also, the learned Judge has observed this is not the case where this Court should interfere in its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. A bare reading of the writ petition and the order supports the contentions raised on behalf of the respondent. Keeping in view the Full Bench judgment of this Court which is binding on this Bench, we are of the considered view that the present appeal is not maintainable. However, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that this is an arguable issue and would require deeper examination as a writ of certiorari would be substantive relief and mentioning of an Article would not by itself exclude the jurisdiction of the appellate Court. - 3 - 4. With respect, we have no reason to defer with the Full Bench Judgment which the judicial propriety demand should follow, while following the Bench. We dismiss the Appeal in limine. No order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE CHIEF JUSTICE CHIEF JUSTICE V.M. KANADE, J. V.M. KANADE, J. V.M. KANADE, J.