IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1020 of 2009 SHYAM KISHOR MISHRA S/O RAM AWADHESH MISHRA, R/O VILLAGE-SANJAT, P.S. BHAGWANPUR, DISTT- BEGUSARAI. -APPELLANT Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BEGUSARAI 3. THE OFFICER-INCHARGE, BARAUNI POLICE STATION, DISTT-BEGUSARAI. 4. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, TATA MOTORS LTD, MUMBAI THROUGH MAURYA MOTORS LTD., PLOT NO.-C-1, INDUSTRIAL AREA, PATLIPUTRA. PATNA-800 013 (BIHAR) 5. THE MANAGER, MAURYA MOTORS LTD. PLOT NO.C-1, INDUSTRIAL AREA, PATLIPUTRA, PATNA-800 013 (BIHAR). 6. THE BRANCH MANAGER, MAURYA MOTORS LTD., NEAR SUBHASH CHOWK, BY-PASS ROAD, P.S. BEGUSARAI TOWN, DISTRICT-BEGUSARAI. -RESPONDENTS 2 07.08.2009 Heard learned counsel for the writ petitioner in respect of the Stamp report raising objection regarding maintainability of this Letters Patent Appeal against judgment and order passed by a single Judge of this Court in exercise of powers in a criminal writ petition where the prayer of the writ petitioner was to direct the Superintendent of Police concerned to ensure registration of first information report so that criminal proceeding may commence against the 2 delinquents. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner made a strenuous effort to show to us that Clause 17 of the Letters Patent Appeal of Patna High Court will not apply to the order passed by the Hon’ble single Judge and, therefore, Letters Patent Appeal should be held to be maintainable by treating the order to have been passed in exercise of extraordinary original civil jurisdiction. According to him, since Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against the order passed by the single Judges in civil writ jurisdiction cases, hence this appeal should also be held to be maintainable. The issue was examined by a Division Bench of this Court in the year 1997 in the case of Damodar Singh & Ors. Vrs. State of Bihar & Ors. ; 1998 (2) P.L.J.R. 68, and the Division Bench, after considering the various provisions in the Letters Patent Appeal of this Court, held that no Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against an order passed by a single Judge in criminal writ jurisdiction. 3 We are not persuaded to take a different view in the matter. As a result, the Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. (Shiva Kirti Singh, ACJ.) (Anjana Prakash, J.) AAhmad