1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA Miscellaneous Application no.47 of 2010. In Letters Patent Appeal (Stamp )No.173 of 2010 Shri Lavu Toraskar, resident of Wadi-Vaddo, Candoli, Bardez-Goa. ....... Applicant V e r s u s M/s. Taj Holiday Village A Five Stat Hotel situated at Sinquerim, Bardez-Goa and Another. ...... Respondents Mr. A.V. Nigalye, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. M.S. Sonak, Advocate for Respondent no.1. Mr. S.S. Kantak, Advocate General with Mr. P. Talaulikar, Additional Government Advocate assisting the Court. CORAM: A.S.Oka & F.M. Reis, JJ. DATE: 28TH JULY, 2010. P.C: 1. This is an application for condonation of delay in preferring a Letters Patent Appeal. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent has raised a preliminary objection. He 2 submitted that a Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Shri Sanjay Z. Rane & Ors. Vs. Smt. Saibai S. Dubaxi (since deceased through LRs.) 2010(1) ALL MR 855. He also placed reliance on another decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 9th September,2009 in L.P.A No.14 of 2009. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent also relied upon a decision of the Division Bench dated 29th June,2009 in LPA no.10 of 2009. 2. We have also heard the learned Advocate General. We had requested the the learned Advocate General to address the Court on the controversy. 3. In the case of Shri Sanjay Z. Rane and others the issue arose before this Court was whether a Letters Patent Appeal was maintainable in the light of the provisions of the Maharshtra High Court (Hearing of Writ Petitions, by Division Bench and Abolition of letters Patent Appeals) Act (1986). This court considered the Sections 3 and 4 of the High Court at Bombay (Extension of Jurisdiction to Goa, Daman and Diu) Act (1981). After considering the aforesaid legislations, in paragraph 46 of the said decision the Division Bench held thus: 3 “46. The other argument in the alternative advanced by learned Senior Advocate now needs to be considered. It is stated that Section 22 of 1987 Act applies existing law before 30th May, 1987 with respect to practice and procedure in the common High Court. On 30th May, 1987 there already was The Maharashtra High Court (Hearing of Writ Petitions, by Division Bench and Abolition of Letters Patent Appeals) Act, 1986 and hence as letters patent appeals were not available in Maharashtra it automatically stopped also in Goa as source of power for that purpose stood extinguished. It is to be noted here that though above referred Maharashtra Act is of the year 1986, it was to come into force from 1.7.1987 and Goa became an independent State with its own State Legislature on 30th May, 1987. Thus, it cannot be said that on 30th May, 1987 the 4 letters patent jurisdiction was not available in State of Mahrashtra. It has been also pointed out to us that validity of said enactment has been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jamshed N. Guzdar Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. (supra). Perusal of paragraphs 52 and 53 of the said Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court shows that both Parliament and State Legislature are competent to legislate with respect to the subject administration of justice which would be wide enough to invest the High Court constituted and recognized by Parliament with the general jurisdiction. It has also been found that Parliament and State Legislature can legislate within their respective spheres so as to invest the High Court with special jurisdiction referable to Entry 46 of List III. The position emerging therefrom is narrated in para 53 5 of said judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court. In paragraph 93 constitutional validity of above referred Maharashtra Act 17 of 1986 has been upheld. This judgment, therefore, shows that th decision of Mahrashtra State Legislature and its enactment to abolish LPAs in Maharashtra will apply and hold good only in so far as area of State of Maharashtra is concerned. Unless, decision to abolish LPAs. in Goa State is taken by the Goa State Legislature and law to that effect is passed, it cannot be said that jurisdiction of the common High Court to entertain LPAs, if available at Goa, ceases automatically because of Maharashtra enactment. We are, therefore, not in a position to hold that above referred Maharashtra enactment has got the effect of stopping the letters patent appeals and their cognizance in so 6 far as Goa State is concerned.” 4. It must be noted here that in L.P.A No.10 of 2010 which was placed before the same Bench which decided the case of the said Sanjay Z.Rane & Ors. (supra), a contention was raised that the earlier decision of the Division bench in the case, of Cedar Construction V/s. Tara Tiles 1984 (2) Bom. CR 530) was not brought to the notice of the Court when the judgment in the case of Sanjay Rane and ors.(supra) was delivered. After considering the said decision of this Court, the Bench reiterated its earlier view that a Letters Patent Appeal was not maintainable. The same view has been taken by another Division Bench in LPA no.14 of 2009 by judgment dated 9th September, 2009. In the circumstances, the view taken by the Division Bench will have to be followed. The Letters Patent Appeal itself is not maintainable. Hence, it is not necessary to entertain this application for condonation of delay in filing the L.P.A. Accordingly, the application is rejected. A. S. Oka, J. F.M. Reis, J. Ap/- 7