IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR L.P.A. NO.208//2008 IN WRIT PETITON NO.119/92 M/s Sharda Ispat Limited ..vs..Mr Sagar Satpute & ors =================================== Mr. R.B. Puranik, Advocate for appellants Mr. =================================== CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR & S.R. DONGAONKAR, JJ. DATE:25.6.2008 P.C. The appeal is directed against decision of the learned Single Judge dated 6.6.2005. Be that as it may, the first question that needs to be addressed is whether the appeal is maintainable. Recently we had the occasion to examine said question in Model Mills ..vs.. Ranjana Vinayak Sagdeo and others in L.P.A.195/2008 decided on1 6.6.2008. In our opinion for the same reasons, the present appeal is not maintainable. Counsel for the appellant however was at pains to persuade us that the fact situation in the above said decision was different. In that case learned Single Judge had clearly expressed that jurisdiction under Article 227 alone was being exercised. In the present case the indication is to the contrary. This submission is founded on the observations in paragraph 1 of the impugned judgment. In our opinion the paragraph 1 only reproduces the case made out in the petition by the petitioner. From the judgment if analysed, there is nothing to indicate that power under Article 226 has been exercised by the learned Single Judge. The discussion in the judgment leaves no manner of doubt that the learned Single Judge has examined the controversy which could be done in exercise of wide powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. None of the grounds taken before the learned Single Judge in our opinion would have required the learned Single Judge to exercise powers under Article 226 as such. If it is so we see no reason, why the opinion expressed in the recent decision in Model Mills' case (supra) will not be attracted. Accordingly for the same reason this appeal is rejected as not maintainable. JUDGE JUDGE smp