STATE OF M P Vs. GAYLORD CHEMICALS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DELAY condoned. Leave granted. Both these appeals arise out of order dated March 14, 2007, passed by the high Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in Writ Appeal No. 180 of 2007, whereby the appellate Bench has dismissed the intra-Court appeal preferred by the appellants before us under the Madhya Pradesh Uchha Nayayalaya (Khand nyaupith Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 (for short the Adhiniyam) as not maintainable. The said appeal had been filed by the appellants against order dated 5th July, 2005, passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court. The Division bench held that the order impugned in the appeal was, in substance, passed by the learned Single Judge in exercise of his jurisdiction under Article 227 of the constitution and therefore, in terms of proviso to Section 2 of the Adhiniyam, intra-Court appeal was specifically barred.

(2.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties. We have also perused the writ petition filed by the appellants in the High Court. We are of the view that the division bench was not justified in dismissing the appeal on the stated ground. It is evident from the body of the writ petition that the writ petitioner had invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court both under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, seeking issuance of an appropriate Writ of Certiorari, quashing the orders passed by the sub-divisional officer-cum-competent authority and the Revenue Commissioner under the M. P. Lok Parisar (Bedakhali) Adhiniyam, 1974. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside both the orders with certain directions. Moreover, the grounds taken in the writ petition go to show that primarily it was a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and the order passed by the Single judge was also under the said Article.