Intra-court appeal barred in criminal writ jurisdiction; maintainability fails absent any enabling rule.

An intra-court writ appeal does not lie against a Single Judge's order passed in criminal writ jurisdiction under Article 226, because the distinction between civil and criminal writ proceedings controls maintainability and the Gauhati High Court Rules contain no enabling provision for such an appeal. Authorities cited by the appellant were treated as procedurally distinct and not determinative of the maintainability question. Applying the Supreme Court principle that a Letters Patent Appeal, or its equivalent, is unavailable from an order rendered in criminal jurisdiction, the Court concluded that the intra-court remedy was not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether an intra-court writ appeal lies against an order passed by a Single Judge in exercise of criminal writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The ruling turned on the distinction between civil writ jurisdiction and criminal writ jurisdiction, and on the absence of any enabling provision in the Gauhati High Court Rules permitting an intra-court appeal in such criminal matters. The Court also noted that the authorities relied on by the appellant dealt with different procedural settings and did not answer the question of maintainability of an appeal from a Single Judge's criminal writ order. Applying the principle stated by the Supreme Court that a Letters Patent Appeal, or its equivalent, does not lie from an order passed in criminal jurisdiction, the Court held that the intra-court remedy was unavailable.

Conclusion: An intra-court writ appeal does not lie against an order passed by a Single Judge in exercise of criminal writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and the appeal was not maintainable.

---