1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.3 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.672 OF 2005 Sadhu Dhondi Jadhav .. Appellant. Versus Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation & Others .. Respondents. Mr.Ashok B. Tajane for the appellant. Mr.G.S. Hegde i/by G.S. Hegde & Associates for respondent No.1. CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & J.P. DEVADHAR, J. J.P. DEVADHAR, J. J.P. DEVADHAR, J. DATED : 7th February, 2008 DATED : 7th February, 2008 DATED : 7th February, 2008 P.C. : 1. This letters patent appeal is directed against the order dated 21-3-2007. 2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the respondents has taken a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the present appeal. According to him, order dated 21-3-2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in exercise of the powers vested in the Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India under which provision the writ was filed. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the 2 appellant however contended that the order impugned in the Petition arose out of an order passed pursuant to an order passed by this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution and, therefore, even though the present writ petition is filed under Article 227, letters patent appeal against the order passed in that petition would be maintainable. We are unable to accept this contention primarily for the reason that the writ petition in question bearing No.672 of 2007 was filed with the title "Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India" and, therefore, the matter was listed and dealt with by the learned Single Judge of this Court. The learned Judge has invoked the powers vested under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and issued the directions in question. The language of Letters Patent Act is clear that exercise of such jurisdiction by the learned Single Judge would not be appellable under these provisions. 4. Consequently, we decline to comment on merits of the case and dismiss this appeal as not maintainable with no order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE 3 J.P. DEVADHAR, J.