State Of M.P vs Sanjay Keralkar
- SCC(2009) 17 SCC 766
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a petition is styled under both Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution and is framed as a writ petition with prayers characteristic of Article 226 proceedings, the fact that the Single Judge's order may be construed as having been passed in exercise of Article 227 jurisdiction does not render an appeal against that order unmaintainable; the appellate court must look to the substance and frame of the petition rather than the characterization of the judicial order, and should treat the matter as one properly cognizable under Article 226 jurisdiction.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
STATE OF M.P. ... Appellant(s)
Versus
SANJAY KERALKAR ... Respondent(s)
ORDER
Leave granted.
Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, we are unable to
sustain the order passed by the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court
dismissing the appeal as preferred by the appellant herein on the ground that the
appeal had been preferred against an order passed under Article 227 of the
Constitution. We have had occasion to look into the petition which had been filed
before the Single Bench of the High Court, which has been styled as writ petition
under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. The Division Bench of the High
Court appears to have not taken into consideration the fact that the petition had
been styled as a writ petition under Article 226 as well and that the frame of the
petition was that of a writ petition as would also be evident from the prayers made
therein.
We are unable to agree with the High Court that the learned Single Judge
had passed order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and that the appeal
was not maintainable.
We, accordingly, allow the appeal and remit the matter to the High Court to
treat the petition as one under Article 226 of the Constitution and to dispose of W.A.
182 of 2006 in accordance with law, within two months from the date of
communication of this order.
There will be no order as to costs.
...................J. (ALTAMAS KABIR)
...................J. (CYRIAC JOSEPH)
New Delhi, January 05, 2009.]
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free