(1.) All these Letters Patent Appeals were heard analogously for the purpose of deciding a preliminary objection raised by the respondents that these appeals are not maintainable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent in view of the fact that the learned Single Judge really exercised jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. According to the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, if a learned Single Judge of this Court, in substance, exercises jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the same is not appealable under Clause -15 of the Letters Patent. According to those learned Counsel, only if, the learned Single Judge exercises original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in that event, a Letters Patent Appeal under Clause -15 of the Letters Patent is maintainable and not otherwise.
(2.) Before we proceed to decide the aforesaid question, it will be profitable to refer to the facts in which these four Letters Patent Appeals have been preferred.
(3.) Therefore, the question that falls for our determination is as to what are the tests which are required to be applied by a Division Bench of the High Court for deciding the question of maintainability of a Letters Patent Appeal under Clause -15 of the Letters Patent against an order passed by a learned Single Judge where the Special Civil Application, out of which the appeal arises, has been described as an application both under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and the learned Single Judge has not specifically described in the order impugned whether His Lordship has exercised the jurisdiction under Article 226 or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. We also propose to deal with the situation where the learned Single Judge has specifically exercised jurisdiction either under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution or both.