1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Letters Patent Appeal No. 305 of 2008 In Writ Petition No. 1701 of 2007 M/s Khare & Company Vs. Pundlik Mahadeo Lokhande & Ors. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Shri P. D. Meghe Adv. for appellant. Shri S. B. Dhande Adv. for respondent-1. Shri Mirza AGP for respondents 2-5. CORAM: A. P. LAVANDE & P. D. KODE JJ. Dated: 30 th March, 2009. Heard Shri Meghe learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Dhande learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Shri Mirza learned AGP for the respondents 2 to 5. 2. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order 2 dated 27.02.2008 passed in Writ petition No. 1701 of 2007. 3. Writ Petition was preferred by the petitioner under Article 227 of Constitution of India. Shri Meghe was called upon to satisfy as to how Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable. Shri Meghe learned counsel placed reliance on Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shankarprasad 1999 II CLR 433 and Division Bench decision of this Court in Mohammad Hasan Khan Vs. Mohammad Majidulla & Ors. 2002(4) ALL MR 512. He submitted that although the petition was filed by the appellant itself under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the reliefs sought were available to the appellant only under Article 226 and therefore present Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable. Per contra, Shri Dhande learned counsel for respondent No. 1 placed reliance upon the judgment in Naranbhai Dayabhai Patel and another Vs. Suleman Isubji Dadabhai AIR 1996 Supreme Court 1184 and National Textile Corporation (SM) Ltd. Vs. Devraj Chandrabali Pai 2006(1) AIR Bom R (DB) 820 and submitted that since the petition itself was filed under Article 227 present Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable. Shri Mirza 3 learned AGP for respondents 2 to 5 supported the submission made by Shri Dhande. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, we are of the considered opinion that present L. P. A. is not maintainable under Clause 15 since the appellant himself had invoked jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The impugned order no where discloses that the learned Single Judge exercised jurisdiction under Article 226. The ratio laid down in Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. (supra.) does not advance the case of appellant. In that case Apex Court was dealing with the petition filed both under Articles 226 and 227, therefore, the same does not advance the case of the appellant. Insofar as judgment in Mohammad Hasan Khan's case (supra.) the judgment has been delivered at the time of final hearing of the appeal after the appeal was admitted and in para 18 of the judgment the Court has specifically observed that they were passing the order in the facts and circumstances of that case. Therefore, we are unable to place any reliance on the said judgment in support of the appellants contention. 4 5. The appellant himself having invoked jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution and learned Single Judge having not mentioned specifically that he was exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution the only legitimate inference that can be drawn is that learned Judge exercised jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. Obviously, therefore, the Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable. Consequently the appeal is rejected. In view of the dismissal of the Letters Patent Appeal Civil Application Nos. 8767 of 2008, 61 of 2009 and 151 of 2009 stand disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE svk