SUNIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF M. P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this application, the applicants seek modification of the order dated 20.9.2006 passed in MCC No. 780/2006 insofar as it directs that the Letters Patent Appeal No. 244/2000 be restored as LPA and not as writ appeal and be listed for admission in the next week.

(2.) LEARNED counsel has invited attention to section 4 of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 and contended that since Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Letters Patent Appeals Samapti) Adhiniyam, 1981 (No. 29 of 1981) has been repealed, the effect is that the Letters Patent jurisdiction of this Court has been revived. Insofar as subsection (2) of section 4 is concerned, learned counsel submits that the action taken in pursuance of the said Act has been saved only as regards final decision in an appeal. The fallacy of the argument is patent from the fact that had it been so then only the decision passed in Letters Patent Appeal would have been saved which were even otherwise not affected by the Act repealed or the Repealing Act. Section 2 of the Adhiniyam, 2005 makes provision for an appeal from a judgment or order passed by Single Bench of the High Court in exercise of original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to a Division Bench comprising two Judges of the same High Court. It is patent from the above provision that though the Madhya Pradesh Act No. 14 of 2006 repeals the earlier Act of 1981 (No. 29 of 1981), the repeal is restricted and it does not say that Letters Patent jurisdiction has been restored. On the contrary it provides for limited jurisdiction under section 2 for appeal against order passed only under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Had it been the intention of the Legislature to restore the jurisdiction of the High Court under the Letters Patent, the Act No. 14 of 2006 would not have made provision for appeals only for Article 226 as such a provision would have been redundant. There is another embargo in the case of the applicant. Section 100A of the Civil Procedure Code, as it stood prior to 1.7.2002, also creates a bar against filing an appeal to the Division Bench in the case of original or appellate decree or order decided by a Single Judge.

(3.) UNDER these circumstances, the MCC No. 933/2006 is dismissed and the Letters Patent Appeal No. 244/2000 merits rejection for the said reasons.