KRISHAN MURARI GUPTA Vs. DISTRICT CO OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WITH the consent of parties, appeal is heard finally.

(2.) PRELIMINARY objection is raised by Shri Roman that this appeal is not maintainable as the petitioner has filed the petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India and in Clause 10 of Letters Patent Appeal against order passed in exercise of power of superintendence is not maintainable. He submitted that appeal be dismissed as not maintainable. He submitted that when petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India and it is dismissed by the Single Bench on merits then it shall be treated to be dismissed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, but when the petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on the ground of jurisdictional error then any decision on the said petition shall be under Article 227 of Constitution of India and letters patent appeal will not be maintainable. He relied upon a judgment in the case of M.P. Audhogik Kenclra Vikas Nigain Ltd., Gwalior and another v. Ram Rakslui Dwivedi and others [(2004) 1 MPLJ 1521 ].

(3.) IT is true that if petition is decided under Article 227 of Constitution of India, then letters patent appeal against the order passed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. But in the present case petitioner before the Single Bench has sought writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing order passed by Board of Revenue. Though petition is styled under Article 227 of Constitution of India, but since writ in the nature of certiorari is sought and such writ can only be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India therefore, this appeal will be maintainable. Mere mistyping of figure 227 in place of 226 will not be sufficient to hold that Single Bench has exercised power of superintendence under Article 227.