1606lpa195.08.sxw  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 195 OF 2008 IN W. P. NO. 995/08 (D) Model Mills, Nagpur through its General Manager and another. :: APPELLANTS -: Versus :- Ranjan s/o Vinayak Sagdeo and others. :: RESPONDENTS ................... Shri RB Puranik, Adv. for the appellants. Shri SA Kalbande, Adv. for the respondents. ....................... Coram: A. M. KHANWILKAR AND S. R. DONGAONKAR, JJ. Dated : 16TH JUNE, 2008. P. C. : 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. The Counsel for the respondents has raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of this appeal. The objection is founded on the opinion recorded by the learned Single Judge in paragraphs 1 and 9 of the impugned decision which reads thus; “1. By way of the present petition, though purportedly filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, from the nature of its claim, it is clear that the petitioners have invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.” 1606lpa195.08.sxw  “9. The interference by this Court in its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 would be warranted only when the finding or approach of the learned Industrial Court is found to be perverse. No such perversity could be found and hence the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.” 3. According to the appellant, the learned Single Judge has completely glossed over the fact that the appellant, in his writ petition, had joined the Industrial Court as party-respondent. Besides, in the title as well as body of the petition it is clearly stated that the writ petition was filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution coupled with the fact that the prayer clause left no manner of doubt that the relief claimed was one of writ of certiorari. Further, the petition also raises ground that the opinion recorded by the Industrial Court was error apparent on the face of the record. On this basis, it is contended that the learned Single Judge has committed manifest error in opining that the nature of claim of the appellant was limited to exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution. 4. Accordingly, the first question to be addressed is, whether the opinion recorded by the learned Single Judge that the petition is ascribable and limited to exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution is correct. Having gone through the pleadings and the relevant documents on record and after hearing Counsel for the parties at length, we are in agreement with the said opinion of the learned Single Judge. If that finding is to be upheld, which we have no doubt in our mind is unquestionable, it necessarily follows that the present appeal is not maintainable. 5. Counsel for the appellant, however, took us through the decisions reported in 2006 (1) ALL MR 494 (National Textile Corporation (SM) Ltd. Vs. Devraj Chandrabali Pai); 1981 Mh. L. J. 93 (State of Maharashtra Vs. Kusum); 1606lpa195.08.sxw  AIR 1986 S.C. 1272 (Umaji Vs. Radhikabai); AIR 1994 Bombay 141 (Jagdish Balwantrao Abhyankar Vs. State of Maharashtra) and lastly AIR 1993 S.C. 806 (Mangalbhai Vs. Radhyshyam). 6. There is no difficulty in accepting the argument of the appellant that if the party (petitioner) invokes jurisdiction of the High Court which can be and needs to be exercised under Article 226 in addition to Article 227 of the Constitution, in such case the appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent may be maintainable. However, in the facts of the present case, we have no hesitation in upholding the opinion recorded by the learned Single Judge that the relief claimed by the appellant was ascribable to and essentially under Article 227 of the Constitution. The said view is reinforced by the exposition of the Supreme Court in the case reported at (2003) 6 S.C.C. 675 (Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai). 7. It is well established that the power under Article 227 is wider than the one conferred on the High Court under Article 226. In that sense, Article 227 has width and vigour unprecedented {see paras 22 and 23 of Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai's case (supra)}. In paragraphs 24 to 27 of the same decision, the Apex Court has restated the difference between a writ of certiorari under Article 226 and supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227. A priori, the grounds of challenge of the order passed by the Tribunal could be legitimately addressed by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, as has been found by the learned Single Judge in the present case. For that reason it was unnecessary to exercise original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Significantly, relying on the exposition in the above decision of the Apex Court, two Division Benches of our High Court have answered the issue regarding maintainability of the appeal as can be seen from the decisions in the case of Uttam A. Gawali Vs. State of Maharashtra - 2006 (3) Bom. C. R. 915 and Kanhaiyyalal Fattelalji 1606lpa195.08.sxw  Upadhyaya Vs. Mahavir Tea Company reported at 2007 (4) Mh. L.J. 360. 8. To get over this position, learned Counsel for the appellant was at pains to point out that the fact situation of the present case is almost similar to one in the case of Mangalbhai Vs. Radhyshyam (supra) in particular, dictum in paragraph 6 thereof. This argument clearly overlooks that the dictum in the said decision of the Apex Court is on the facts and circumstances of that case. In the present case as observed earlier, we have no hesitation in upholding the opinion of the learned Single Judge that though the petition was purportedly filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the grievance brought before the Court was essentially one which could be effectively addressed under Article 227 of the Constitution. It is in that background the learned Single Judge has observed that the petition will have to be confined to the scope of interference under Article 227; and no ground was made out by the appellant to extend that jurisdiction in favour of the appellant. 9. Since we have taken the view that the appeal is not maintainable, it is not necessary for us to go into the correctness of the finding and conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge in disposing of the writ petition on merits. 10. Our attention was invited by the learned Counsel for the appellant to the order dated 31/7/2006 passed in L.P.A. No. 261 of 2005. Indeed, the Counsel for the appellant stated that the opinion recorded by the Division Bench of our High Court in the case of National Textile Corporation (SM) Ltd. Vs. Devraj Chandrabali Pai (supra) has been referred to Full Bench for an authoritative pronouncement. Learned Counsel for the appellant, therefore, submits that till the said issue is decided, hearing of this appeal ought to be deferred. We find no merits to entertain this argument. In the first place, 1606lpa195.08.sxw  the said order records that both sides agreed that Letters Patent Appeal was maintainable in that case. Besides, we have decided the controversy on the basis of facts and circumstances of the case which would not permit us to take a view that the learned Single Judge has committed any error in observing that the grievance in the petition was essentially one which deserved to be addressed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Since that view is unquestionable, it necessarily follows that this appeal is not maintainable. 11. Taking any view of the matter, no interference is warranted in the present letters patent appeal. Hence, dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE WWL