N A HKQH CXWKTOF CHHATHSGARH. BILASPUR ^ WritA»t>eal(P.RINo.4708of200T DB: Hon'ble Shri JaeiUshBIiaUa. Ae-C^J. SInfISunil kumar Sialia, Jud» Appellaat RBSPOMDENT8 Deepak Sharma, s/o Raniashankar Sharma, aged about 50 years, resident 6f ward no.21, Maaendragarh, Distt. Korea(C.G) Versus 1. State ofChIiattisgarh, fhrough the secretaiy Departnient of PubUc Works, Dau Katyaa Singh Bhawaa, Raipur (C.G) 2. The Executive Eugineer, Ghhattisgarh Housing . Board, Bilaspur(G.G) ^3. The Executive Engineer, Chliattisgarh Housing Board, Ptogram Circle, Raigarh (C.G) Appearaace: Shri Kishore Bhaduri, counsel fortheappellanta. ShriU.N.S. Deo, Govt. Advcwate for fhe State/respondents on advaucecopy. ORAI.QMMBR (13,8.2007) Jtudlsh BllaBa. Ae.C.J., This writ appeal arises out of an order passed in Writ Petition filed underArticlc 227 ofthe Constitutionofladia. Before coming m.to force offhe H^h Court of Chhattisgarh (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006 (fiw shprt 'the Act, 2006'), intra court appesils were beiog filed under fhe provisions of the Madhya I^radesh Uehcha Nyayalaya (Letters Patent Appeals SampatQ Adhiruyam, 1981., The said provisiou of Letters Patent Appeal was repealed by fhe Act, 2006 and by ffie same notifleation, CIihattisgarh Higy'Court Riiles, 2005 came into force wherein fhe provision 6f appeal is provided uuder Riile 2 which te as foUows: "2. Appeal to the Division Beneh of fhe Wgla. Court fioni ajudgment orordeTofoae Judgp ofthe High Court made in exercise of or^uialjurisdiction 26 27 (1) Aa appeal shaU Ue fiTom a judgnient or order passed by one judge of theH^tt Court ia exercise of oiiysal jurusdiction zinder Article 226 of tfae Constitution of India, to a Divisioa Bench coinprising of two Judges of tlie same high Court: Prowided that no such appeal shaU lie against au interiocutory order or against an order passed ia exercise of supervisoiy jiuisdiction under Article 227 offhe Constitutionoflndja. (2) Anappealundersub-section(l)shaUbe ffled wifhin 45 days fix>in the date oforder passed by a Siagte Judge. Provided that aay appeal inay be adinitted afiter the prescnbed period of 45 days, if the petitioner satisfies fhe Dwision Bench that he had suf&cient cause for not preferring fhe appeal vrifhiii such period. Explaiiation;- The fact that fhe petitioner was misled by any order, practice or judgment of the High Court ia ascertaiaing the prescribed period may by sufficient cause wifhin fhe nieauiag of fhis sub-section." Froin the perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is ciystal clear that no appeal shaB Ue against an order passed iii exercise of supervisoiy jurisdlction underArticle 227 ofthe Constitution of India. Same view has been taken by a Division Bench of this Court ia W.A(P.R.) No.3486/2007, in which one of us (Hon'ble Shri Jagdish BIiaUa, Acting CluefJustice) is a Meniber. lu l^ht of fhe above discussion, iatra court appeal is not mamtainable against fhe order passed in exercise ofsupervisoiy jurisdiction zmder Article 227 ofthe Constitution oflndia. Accordiagly, this writ appeal is'dismissed. Sd;- Acting ChiefJustice Sun^^T! Sinba /Rao/