JUDGMENT
C.K. Thakker, C.J.
1. This Letters Patent Appeal is filed against an order passed by the learned Single Judge on 10th of April, 2002 in Writ Petition No. 2178 of 2002. The said order reads thus:
“The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or error apparent on the face of the record. Hence petition is rejected. On behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, learned Counsel makes a statement that the transit accommodation is ready and this transit accommodation is available to the petitioner; till such time the permanent accommodation comes up. Statement is accepted. Petition is disposed of accordingly.”
2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
3. When the matter was placed for admission hearing, a preliminary objection was taken by the learned Counsel for respondents Nos. 2 and 3 that Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable inasmuch as the petition filed by the petitioners (present appellants) was under Article 227 of the Constitution. When the petitioners themselves had invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution and an order was passed, such an order would not be subject to intra-Court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
4. The learned Counsel for the respondents invited our attention to paragraph 13 of the writ petition wherein it was stated that being aggrieved by the order dated 11th December, 2001, passed by the Additional Collector, Bombay, the petitioners approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on several grounds raised in the petition. In paragraph 19 (prayer clause), a prayer was made that this Court be pleased to call for records and proceedings and on perusal thereof, to pass an appropriate order setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner in appeal.
5. The learned Counsel for the appellants, on the other hand, submitted that an appeal is maintainable as, in substance and in reality, the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution was invoked by the petitioners. For the above submission, reference was made by the Counsel to a decision of the Apex Court in Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. v. Shankarprasad, . The Supreme Court in that case observed that where a petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, Letters Patent Appeal would be maintainable. There, a contention was raised on behalf of the appellant that the writ petition filed by the respondent (original petitioner) in the High Court was in substance under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and appeal was not competent. The Supreme Court, however, considering the facts of the case and the petition which was filed by the petitioner in the High Court, observed that the petitioner had invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. Letters Patent Appeal was, therefore, maintainable.
6. Reliance was also placed on a recent decision of the Apex Court in Kanhaiyalal Agrawal & others v. Factory Manager, Gwalior Sugar Company Ltd., , and in particular, paragraph 6 thereof. In that case, writ appeals were dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court holding that they were not maintainable as they arose out of proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution which was revisional in nature. The Court, after referring leading decisions on the point, observed that an intra-Court appeal would lie if a Single Judge exercises jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution but if he exercises jurisdiction under Article 227, an appeal would not be competent. The Court stated:
“But with an explanation that if the Single Judge of the High Court in considering the petition under Article 226 or 227 does not state under which provision he has decided the matter and where the facts justify filing of petition both under Article 226 and Article 227 and a petition so filed is dismissed by the Single Judge on merits, the matter may be considered in its proper perspective in an appeal.”
It may, however, be stated that the Court observed that it was wholly unnecessary to examine that aspect of the matter in view of declaration of law in Lokmat Newspapers.
7. In the instant case, the appellants were petitioners before the learned Single Judge. They invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. If it is so, obviously, an intra-Court appeal would not lie. It is clear from the language of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent applicable to this Court. The point is also covered by several decisions of the Supreme Court including a leading one in Umaji Keshao Meshram v. Radhikabai, . It is not even the case of the appellants-petitioners that they had mistakingly invoked Article 227 though in substance and in reality, it was a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. No such plea was raised by them before the learned Single Judge when the writ petition was filed nor even such a case is pleaded in the memorandum of Letters Patent Appeal. Even otherwise also, in our considered opinion, in the facts and circumstances and keeping in view the relevant provisions of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), the petitioners could have invoked Article 227 of the Constitution by making a prayer that the High Court may exercise supervisory jurisdiction.
8. In pursuance of slum rehabilitation scheme, an order of eviction had been passed by the Competent Authority. Section 33 of the Act confers power of eviction on the Competent Authority. It states that where such authority is satisfied, either upon a representation from the owner of a building or upon other information in its possession that the occupants of the building have not vacated it in pursuance of any order or direction issued or given by the authority, the authority shall, by order, direct the eviction of the occupants from the building in such manner and within such time as may be specified in the order, and for the purpose of such eviction, may use or cause to be used such force as may be necessary. The proviso to the said section enacts that before making any order under the said section, the Competent Authority shall have to afford a reasonable opportunity to the occupants of the building to show-cause why they should not be evicted therefrom. Thus before passing an order of eviction, the Competent Authority is bound to comply with the principles of natural justice and fair-play as mandated by the legislature. The orders passed under section 33 have been made appealable under section 35 of the Act which provides that any person aggrieved by any notice, order or direction issued or given by the Competent Authority may appeal to the Administrator within the period prescribed therein.
9. In our opinion, therefore, the authorities are exercising quasi judicial functions. The Commissioner, therefore, in our considered opinion, can legitimately be termed “Tribunal” subject to the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. Once this position is conceded, obviously, it cannot be said that the petitioners could not have invoked Article 227 by making a prayer to this Court to exercise power of Superintendence. If it is so, Letters Patent Appeal would not lie.
10. Though Article 227 (as also Article 136) of the Constitution uses the expression “Tribunal”; the said term has not been defined therein. It, however, includes within its sweep, all adjudicating bodies with judicial as distinguished from administrative or executive functions. Vide Durga Shankar Mehta v. Raghuraj Singh, .
11. It is settled law that the use of nomenclature “Tribunal” is not decisive and the Court will have to consider in the light of the statutory provisions with which it is called upon to consider the case as to whether an adjudicating authority can be said to be “Tribunal” and is subject to supervisory jurisdiction of Article 227 of the Constitution. Thus, on the one hand, ‘Domestic Tribunal’ though has been described as “Tribunal”, does not fall within the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 vide Engineering Mazdoor Sabha v. Hind Cycles Ltd., , Durga Shankar Mehta v. Raghuraj Singh, ; Commissioner for Religious Endowments, Custodian of Evacuees Property, Excise Authorities, etc., have been held to be Tribunals subject to power of Superintendence by the High Court vide Indira Sohanlal v. Custodian of Evacuee Property, ; Baradakanta Mishra v. Bhimsen Dixit, . Likewise, a payment of wages authority has been held Tribunal vide A.V. D’Costa v. Divisional Engineer, G.I.P. Railway, .
12. The learned Counsel for respondents Nos. 2 and 3 also invited our attention to an order dated October 5, 1999 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. Nos. 231 and 232 of 1999, wherein it was observed that the Court was aware of the fact that against an order of a learned Single Judge in a petition under Article 227, no Letters Patent Appeal would lie. But the Court admitted the appeals as a similar matter was admitted and was pending. The Counsel stated that the order of admission of Letters Patent Appeals was challenged by the respondents. On January 5, 2001, leave was granted by the Supreme Court and after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, the Apex Court held that letters patent appeals were not maintainable and the Division Bench committed an error of law in entertaining them. Accordingly the Letters Patent Appeals were ordered to be disposed of.
13. In the facts and circumstances, in our opinion, since the appellants-petitioners had rightly invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution and the learned Single Judge had exercised power of Superintendence, the Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable and the same deserves to be dismissed on that ground alone.
14. Finally, the learned Counsel for the appellants prayed that ad interim relief granted earlier may be continued for some time so as to enable the appellants to approach the Apex Court. The prayer is strongly objected on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. It was stated that after the scheme was framed, about 150 persons have shifted to transit camp made available for them. Only the appellants are objecting to the scheme and continued to occupy the site. It was also stated that even before the learned Single Judge, a statement was made which has been incorporated in the order passed by the learned Single Judge, extracted hereinabove by us, that transit accommodation is ready and will be made available to the petitioners and the said statement was accepted by the Court. Even today, the transit accommodation is available, stated the learned Counsel.
15. In view of the above fact, in our opinion, the prayer for continuation of interim relief cannot be granted and is hereby rejected. We may, however, clarify that we have not entered into merits of the matter and the appeal is dismissed only on the ground of non-maintainability.
16. In view of the dismissal of the letters patent appeal, civil application does not survive and is disposed of accordingly.
17. Parties be given copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar of this Court.