P GOPAL RATNAM RAMAN Vs. SHYAM BABU GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the Writ Petition heard and decided by the learned Single judge, the two appellants Dr. P. Gopal Ratnam Raman and Dr. Shrikrishna yeshikar were impleaded respectively as non-petitioners Nos. 4 and 3. They have appealed against the decision rendered in that petition on 22-4-1985 while the other non-petitioners, State of Madhya Pradesh (No. 1) and the State Public Service commission (No. 2) have not appealed and are impleaded in the instant appeal as respondents Nos. 2 and 3 respectively. Dr. Shyam Babu Gupta, the writ-petitioner, figures as the first respondent in the instant appeal.

(2.) WE are required in this matter to consider and decide first the question of maintainability of the appeal as that has been seriously questioned by Shri P. L. Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. He has relied mainly on a Bench decision of this Court in the case of Vijayaraje Scindia, 1978 MPLJ 78 -1988 JLJ 861 to which one of us (Dr. T. N. Singh, J.) was a party. He has also cited other decisions to contend that the learned single Judge having issued the writ against the State of Madhya Pradesh by making certain direction against that respondent, in the absence of appeal by the State, the order passed by the learned single Judge is not assailable at the instance of the appellants. On behalf of the appellants, their learned counsel, Shri J. P. Gupta, on the other hand, placed implicit reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Pushkar Nath (AIR 1987 SC 1311)to contend that the question is no longer res integra. He has also drawn our attention to the prayer portion of the writ petition and to the operative part of the impugned order that relief was granted by making necessary direction in that regard. As aggrieved persons, the instant appeal at their instance, is maintainable and it is also urged that in the Court's Judgment in Vijayaraje Scindia (supra), the question of maintainability of Letters Patent Appeal against order passed by learned Single Judge in the writ jurisdiction was not decided.

(3.) IN our opinion, the three-fold contention raised by Shri Gupta must prevail. Although in Pushkar Nath (supra), their Lordships were required to determine the question of maintainability of the appeal with respect to the provisions of Letters patent applicable to Jammu and Kashmir High Court, what we read in para 8 of the report is indeed of signal relevance to the question mooted before us. Indeed, the crux of the controversy no doubt revolves round the question as to whethera Single judge of a High Court, in passing an order or making direction envisaged under article 226 of the Constitution exercise original Civil Jurisdiction even through that jurisdiction. The language of clause 10 of the Letters Patent of this Court, in terms, refers to that centre of the controversy. Let relevant portion thereof be extracted: