Is Letters Patent Appeal Maintainable Against Single Judge's Order Passed Under Article 227? Supreme Court To Examine

Recently, the Supreme Court granted a leave in a plea challenging the decision of the High Court's Division Bench which had interfered with the Single Bench decision rendered while exercising supervisory powers under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The question that appeared for the Court's consideration is whether the Division Bench had valid jurisdiction to entertain a challenge to a Single Judge's order passed in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The present case relates to the termination of the respondent/teacher where the High Court's Single Bench while exercising powers under Article 227 quashed and set aside the order of the Tribunal established under the Gujarat Affiliated Colleges Services Tribunal Act, 1983 (“Tribunal Act”) and upheld the dismissal of the Respondent.

The Single Judge held that Ordinance 69B being a Special law will prevail over the provisions of the Tribunal Act, which is a general law. Therefore, an appropriate forum to challenge the termination would be a University as mentioned under Ordinance 69B but not a Tribunal.

The Single Bench order was assailed by the Respondent before the Division Bench under Article 227. The Division bench had interfered and reversed the Single Bench findings.

Following this, the appellant approached the Supreme Court challenging the decision of the High Court's Division Bench.

The bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Aravind Kumar will examine the aforesaid questions.

It is worthwhile to mention that previously the Court had expressed a prima facie view that the issue regarding the jurisdiction of the Division to entertain Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) against the Single Judge's Order passed under Article 227 of the Constitution is covered by a decision of LIC V/s. Nandini J. Shah reported in (2018) 15 SCC 356.

In Nandini J. Shah's case, the three-judge bench of the Supreme Court held that it is impermissible for the Division Bench of the High Court to entertain LPA against the Single Judge's order passed under Article 227 of the Constitution.

In short, the Court held that letter patent appeals filed against the Single Bench order passed under Article 227 would not be maintainable.

Further, the Court in Nandini J. Shah's case clarified that an order passed by a civil court is amenable to the scrutiny of the high court only in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which is different from Article 226 of the Constitution and no writ can be issued against the order passed by the civil court and, therefore, no letters patent appeal would be maintainable.

Appearances:

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Anchit Bhandari, Adv. Mr. K. Paari Vendhan, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Singh, AOR Mrs. Manju Singh, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Durgvanshi, Adv. Mr. Saumitra Singh, Adv.

Case Details: S AD VIDYA MANDAL & ANR. Versus HEMANT C JADHAV & ORS., DIARY NO. - 46584/2019

Click here to read the order