IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1960 of 2010 BIHAR STATE BOARD OF RELIGIOUS TRUSTS, VIDYAPATI MARG, PATNA THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT, KISHORE KUNAL … … …. DEFENDANT/PETITIONER/APPELLANT Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, through Law Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna, …Respondent Ist Set/Respondent 2. Sri Sarva Mangala Devi Trust, through its Managing Trustee, Prem Shankar Chaudhary, 3. Prem Shankar Chaudhary, Managing Trustee, 4. Uma Shankar Jaiswal, Trustee, Both sons of Late Ram Chandra Prasad Chaudhary 5. Shambhu Prasad Chaudhary,Trustee, sonof Late Sri Bhola Prasad Chaudhary, All residents of Gulzarbagh, Station Road, P.S. Alamganj, District Patna, … Plaintiffs/Respondents/Respondents For the Appellant: M/s Ganpati Trivedi and Madan Mohan, Advocates For the State : Mr. Alok Ranjan, AC to GP 9 ----------- 2 10.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. The issue arising as preliminary issue is whether this Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against the judgment passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India ? The answer to the aforesaid issue lies in the provisions of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of this Court, which permits an appeal to this Court from a judgment of 2 learned Single Judge of the Court to a Division Bench provided the order or judgment was not in the exercise of “the power of superintendence under the provisions of Section 107 of the Government of India Act …….”. The power of superintendence over the subordinate court is now available to High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and hence no Letters Patent Appeal will lie when learned Single Judge passes an order in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. That is the position in the case at hand. Learned counsel for the appellant has cited various judgments to show that power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is wide enough to cover judicial or quasi-judicial orders between the private parties. That issue is not arising for determination in this case because the petition before the learned Single Judge was under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and order has been passed upon that basis only. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, when the appeal itself is not maintainable, no useful purpose will be served by condoning the delay in preferring 3 the instant Letters Patent Appeal, which has been listed for order. Accordingly, this Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. SC (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)