Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 11, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Sanjay Vyas vs Block Medial Officer on 17 January, 2020

Author: S.C.Sharma

Bench: S.C.Sharma

 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE

                         W A No. 51 / 2019
     SANJAY VYAS VS. BLOCK MEDICAL OFFICER & ANOTHER
                                                    --- 1 ---
INDORE, Dated : 17/01/2020
     Mr. Prateek Patwardhan, learned counsel for the
appellant.
     Mr. Vinay Gandhi, learned counsel for the respondent

State.

The present Writ Appeal is arising out of order dated 19/12/2018 passed in W.P.No. 8554/2016. It was a Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

The Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No. 338/2018 (Jagdish Prasad Vs. Board of Revenue and others) vide order dated 15/5/2018 has held that no Writ Appeal is maintainable against an order passed in Writ Petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Paragraph 3 to 6 of the aforesaid reads as under :

3. The writ petitioner in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India had filed the writ petition and against the order passed by the Board of Revenue, an intra-court appeal would lie. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Writ Court has not exercised the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in W. A. No.286/2017 (Shailendra Kumar vs. Divisional Forest Officer & another) decided on 06.07.2017, the Division Bench of this Court dismissing W. A. No.265/2017 vide order dated 04.09.2017 (Trustees of H. C. Dhanda Trust vs. State of MP & others) is distinguishable and the present appeal is maintainable. He placed reliance on the decisions in the matter of Pernod Ricard India (P) Ltd. vs. State of MP & others reported in 2018(1) MPLJ 72, Jabalpur Bus Operators Association & others vs. State of MP & others reported in 2003(1) MPLJ 513, Jaideve Siddha (Dr.) & others vs. Jaiprakash Siddha& others reported in 2007(3) MPLJ 595, Manoj Kumar vs. Board of Revenue & others reported in 2008(1) MPLJ 152, Shailendra Kumar vs. Divisional Forest Officer & another reported HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE W A No. 51 / 2019 SANJAY VYAS VS. BLOCK MEDICAL OFFICER & ANOTHER
--- 2 ---

in 2017(4) MPLJ 109, State of MP & others vs. M. S. Wakankar reported in 2007(1) MPLJ 99 and decision of Apex Court in the case of Jogendrasinghji Vijaysinghji vs. State of Gujarat & others reported in 2015(9) SCC 1,

4. It is well settled that merely giving a nomenclature of Article 226 of the writ petition, in case, a writ appeal is preferred, the Division Bench is required to consider the pleadings, nature of the order challenged and the relief claimed in the writ petition. Even the finding of the Writ Court in its regard that the writ petition decided in exercise of Article 226/227 is also not decisive.

5. In view of the latest Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Shailendra Kumar (supra), the law laid down by the three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in the case of of Radheshyam & another vs. Chhabi Nath & others (Civil Appeal No.2548/2009) passed on 26.02.2015 and the view taken by the Apex Court in the case of Jogendrasinghji Vijaysinghji vs. State of Gujarat & others reported in 2015 (9) SCC 1, we are of the view that the in the present case, against the order of Board of Revenue, no writ appeal is maintainable as the order passed by the Board of Revenue is not an original order.

6. On due consideration of the law laid down in the case ofTrustees of H. C. Dhanda Trust (supra) and Shailendra Kumar (supra), we are of the view that the writ petition of the appellant was purely a petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India. The present appeal filed under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam is not maintainable. The writ appeal is accordingly, dismissed, as not maintainable.

In the light of the aforesaid order, no case for interference is made out in the matter. Accordingly, the present Writ Appeal is dismissed.

           (S. C. SHARMA)                 (SHAILENDRA SHUKLA)
               JUDGE                             JUDGE
KR



Digitally signed by Kamal Rathor
Date: 2020.01.17 12:07:36 +05'30'