G.K.VYAS,J. - (1.) The New India Assurance Company Limited, has challenged the judgment dated 01.12.2017 passed by learned Single Judge in SBCWP No.13507/2017, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution India, which was filed against the award dated 20.03.2017 passed by learned Permanent Lok Adalat, Jodhpur in PLA Case No.34/2016, was dismissed. The learned Single Judge vide order impugned considered all aspects of the matter and upheld the award passed by the learned Permanent Lok Adalat in a writ petition filed invoking supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) Admittedly, the Permanent Lok Adalat was created under the Legal Service Authority Act, 1987, against the order of Permanent Lok Adalat, there is no provision of appeal, therefore, the appellant preferred writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed against the award of Permanent Lok Adalat and now this special appeal has been filed by the appellant Insurance Company against the judgment of learned Single Judge. However, in view of judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court DBSAW No.345/2015 Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. M/s. Shyam Narain Mehra and Brothers, decided on 29.07.2015 , the instant appeal is not maintainable because it has been filed against the order passed by a writ court in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) The relevant discussion made by a coordinate bench of this Court in the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. M/s. Shyam Narain Mehra and Brothers (supra), made in paragraph 15, reads as infra: "15. We have considered the submissions and find that there is a clear bar of filing intra-court Special Appeal under Rule 134(i) of the Rules of 1952, against the judgment or final order (not being a Judgment passed in the e exercise of appellate Jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made in the exercise of appellate Jurisdiction by a Court subject to the superintendence of the High Court and not being an order made in the exercise of revisional Jurisdiction and not being a sentence or order passed or made in the exercise of the power of superintendence or in the exercise of criminal Jurisdiction) of one Judge of the High Court. The Rule is more than clear that where the High Court had exercised the power of superintendence in a writ petition, which is vested in it under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, in a matter arising out of the orders of the Rent Tribunal and Appellate Rent Tribunal in a landlord-tenant dispute, the exercise of power would be under Article 227 and not under Article 226, as in the case of power under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, in view of the pronouncements of the Supreme Court in Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil (supra) and Jacky v. Tiny Alias Antony and ors. (supra), could not have entertained such prayers under Article 226 of the Constitution. 16. The legal position, In view of the judgments of the Supreme Court in Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil (supra) and Jacky v. Tiny Alias Antony and ors. (supra), is now settled and thus, since the appeal is not a matter of right and can be filed only if there is a statutory provision, the intra-court Special Appeal against the order of learned Single Judge passed in exercise of the power of superintendence under Article 227, is not maintainable, in view of Rule 134(i) of the Rules of 1952, which clearly bars the filing of Special Appeal against the judgment of the High Court rendered in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution. 17. The Special Appeal is held to be not maintainable, and is accordingly dismissed.";