Letters Patent appeal distinction: Article 226 judgments remain appealable, while Article 227 supervisory orders are not

A Letters Patent appeal under clause 15 lies from a Single Judge's judgment in a petition under Article 226 because that jurisdiction is original in character and the right of appeal is preserved unless expressly excluded. No intra-court appeal lies from a Single Judge's judgment under Article 227 because that provision is supervisory and is expressly outside clause 15. Rule 18 of Chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 only governs first-instance allocation and disposal by a Single Judge; it does not extinguish a Letters Patent appeal in Article 226 matters, but it does not remove the bar in Article 227 matters. The Full Bench view was overruled to the extent it denied appeals in Article 226 proceedings.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether an intra-court appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent lies from a judgment of a Single Judge in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution; (ii) whether such an appeal lies from a judgment of a Single Judge in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution; (iii) whether Rule 18 of Chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 bars such an appeal.

Issue (i): whether an intra-court appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent lies from a judgment of a Single Judge in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Analysis: The power under Article 226 is original in character and is distinct from supervisory jurisdiction. It corresponds to the writ jurisdiction historically exercised by the Chartered High Courts and, when a petition under that Article is heard by a Single Judge pursuant to the High Court's rules, clause 15 governs the right of appeal unless some provision expressly excludes it. The continuation of existing High Court jurisdiction under Article 225 preserves the Letters Patent appeal structure.

Conclusion: The appeal lies under clause 15 in a petition under Article 226, unless expressly barred.

Issue (ii): whether such an appeal lies from a judgment of a Single Judge in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Analysis: Article 227 confers supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts and tribunals. By the continued operation of clause 15, read with the constitutional succession of the relevant reference to the power of superintendence, an appeal from a Single Judge's order under Article 227 is expressly excluded. The supervisory power is not to be treated as original jurisdiction, and the bar in clause 15 is preserved.

Conclusion: No intra-court appeal lies from a Single Judge's judgment under Article 227.

Issue (iii): whether Rule 18 of Chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 bars such an appeal.

Analysis: Rule 18 only authorises Single Judge disposal of specified Article 226 and Article 227 matters notwithstanding the general allocation to Division Benches. The expression "finally disposed of" regulates hearing and disposal at first instance and does not abrogate a right of appeal conferred by the Letters Patent. It cannot override the chartered appellate right in Article 226 matters.

Conclusion: Rule 18 does not bar a Letters Patent appeal in an Article 226 matter, but it does not displace the express bar for Article 227 matters.

Final Conclusion: The Full Bench view was overruled to the extent it denied Letters Patent appeals in Article 226 matters, but the appeal before the Court failed because the impugned petition was under Article 227 and the intra-court appeal was not maintainable.

Ratio Decidendi: A Letters Patent appeal continues to lie from a Single Judge's judgment in an Article 226 proceeding because it is an original proceeding, but no such appeal lies from a Single Judge's judgment in an Article 227 proceeding because supervisory jurisdiction is expressly excluded by clause 15.

---