nr ai, ;iilt :l!tl HIGM COURT OFCHHArnSGARH AT BILASPUR Division^BiencK Coram : Hon'ble Shri •Jaeitlish Bhalla. Aa. C.J. and Hon'bleShriDilipiRa9sahebDeshmukh,J. Appellants Petitioner Respondents WritApt)eal(R.FK)No.6823/2007 w.4. 's-ao^^- 1. Santuram Yadav, S/o Shri Kanglyram Yaday, Aged about 40 years, R/o , Village Berla, Ppst Berla, DJStrict-Durg ,^C.G.);,,'1:;, : • . : . ..'. :~ .: 2. l?antoshKumarYaday,SA3Shri©Qku| i^day, Aged abQyt 37 years, R/o Village Thiankhamaria, Post /Saja, DistrictDurg(C.G.) versus i 1. . The Secretary, Krishi Upaj; Mandi Samiti, Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.) 2, The ehaiiTnan/President Krishi Llpat Mahcli Saniiti, Bemeiara, District Durg -^C^';'.J;';:'.''1'.::1 :.;' ^ WRITAI:>PEALlUNl3ERSECSTlONs2(11iOFTHECHHATTISGARH WPl'i^iTt)i3'i-EDI^iSi<aNgEN<3M)AG!T2006. Present : Shn R-Sam K&shv, couhselToRthe appellants. ORAl-ORDER (Passed pnfi'1' OfNovember, 2007y 'The follbvving oral order of the Court was passed by Hon'bleSliriJagi!ltehBhalla,.ActingG.J.: ThisvmtappealisdireGt^^gain^tB^ydgm^tftandpi^RGlafeclli 2.11.2006 pass6d |by learhed ;Sin8le|iJi.iidge^i|iWriti Retition No. 55p8^of 2006 whereby affirming the a»QKtfclateei i8.8.2D08 Labour Gourt, Dyrg uncler | I.D. jAct in Case No.il 56/I.D.Act/Reference/2QQ5diSmi^!Rg?th8®|aini®fthe7^ppella^ passed hy tlji^i ^-%; -i:L ;-:1 ]:;i,, :!-!k j^l: 'A'.^ ll.i :'ii:s i 'i.i |i.)|||i lilli' •!:B fc@ for reinstatement in the service with wages, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Shri P. S. Koshy, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that writ petition was filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, and therefore, it atti-acts the original jurisdiction conferred upon the High Court by the Constitution of India. \ Before coming into existel'i^e of The Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Acts, 2006, the intra court appeals were being filed under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Letters Patent Appeals) Sampati) Adhiniyam 1981 (herein after referred to "Adhiniyam"). The said provisions of Letters patent Appeals was repealed by the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006 (No.1 of 2007) and by the same notification Chhattisgarh High Court Rules, 2006 came into being wherein the provision of appeal is provided under Rule 2 which reads as under: "2. Appeal to the Division Bench of the High Court from a Judgment or order of one judge of the High Court made in exercise of original jurisdiction :- (1) An appeal shall lie from a judgment or order passed by one Judge of the High Court in exercise of original Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to a Division Bench comprising of two Judges of the same High Court: Provided that no such appeal shall lie against an interlocutory order or against an order passed in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. (2) An appeal under sub-section (a) shall be filed within 45 days from the date of'order passed by a single Judge. Provided that any appeal may be admitted after the .iss!SV^ //^•% "^ £''&_L 1, -s1 prescribed period of 45 days, if the petitioner satisfied the Division Bench that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within such period. Explanation:- The fact that the petitioner was misled by any order, practice or judgment of the High Court in ascertaining the prescribed period may by sufficient cause within the meaning ofthis sub-se'ction." From the perusal of the above and in the light of judgment passed by this Court iri.Chhattisgarh Chemical Mill Mazdoor Sangh v. Director Keystone Industries Ltd. and two others in Writ Appeal (PR) No. 3486 of 2007 on 13th July 2007 wherein it is already held that the intra court appeal does not lie against the judgment of the case under Article 227 of Constitution of India. In the light of above, the appeal is not maintainable and accordingly it is dismissed as not maintainable. Sd/- ActingChiefJustice Sd/- DUip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Aa'jini i.