Intra-court appeal maintainability turns on the real nature of relief and Article 226 substance, not the petition's label.

Maintainability of an intra-court appeal depends on the real nature of the principal relief and the substance of the writ petition, not its label. Where the petition substantially challenges an assessment order and seeks quashing, it is treated as invoking Article 226 certiorari jurisdiction even if Article 227 is also mentioned, making the intra-court appeal maintainable. The earlier Supreme Court order was read as directing the Letters Patent Appeal to be considered on merits, not merely as extending limitation. The High Court's contrary view on maintainability was therefore unsustainable, and the matter was directed to be heard on merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the earlier order of the Supreme Court permitted the Letters Patent Appeal to be heard on merits and not merely treated as time being extended for filing it; (ii) Whether the writ petition was in substance one under Article 226 of the Constitution of India so as to make the intra-court appeal maintainable under Section 2(1) of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalay (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005.

Issue (i): Whether the earlier order of the Supreme Court permitted the Letters Patent Appeal to be heard on merits and not merely treated as time being extended for filing it.

Analysis: The earlier order stated that the normal remedy was an LPA and that, since the special leave petition had been entertained, time was granted to prefer the LPA, which, if otherwise free from defect, was to be entertained for being considered on the merits. The language showed a direction to place the appeal before the High Court for merits consideration, not a mere enlargement of limitation.

Conclusion: The earlier order required the Letters Patent Appeal to be considered on merits, and the High Court erred in treating it as only a waiver of limitation.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition was in substance one under Article 226 of the Constitution of India so as to make the intra-court appeal maintainable under Section 2(1) of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalay (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005.

Analysis: The decisive factor is the real nature of the principal relief and not merely the label used in the petition. A petition challenging an assessment order and seeking quashing of the assessment substantially invokes certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226, even if Article 227 is also mentioned. Maintainability of the intra-court appeal depends on whether the single judge mainly exercised original writ jurisdiction under Article 226 rather than supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227.

Conclusion: The writ petition was, in substance, one under Article 226 and the Letters Patent Appeal was maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's view on maintainability was unsustainable, the impugned order was set aside, and the writ appeal was directed to be heard on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: For determining maintainability of an intra-court appeal, the court must examine the real nature of the principal relief and the substance of the order, and a petition challenging an administrative or quasi-judicial order is treated as one under Article 226 where that is the substantial jurisdiction invoked.

---