Intra-Court Appeal Maintainable Against Article 226 Orders: Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Articles 226 and 227

Case Snapshot

• Case Name: Ajit Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

• Citation: 2026 INSC 733

• Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu

• Date of Judgment: July 13, 2026

• Area of Law: Constitutional Law, Motor Vehicles Act, Civil Procedure

Judgment in Brief

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Division Bench's judgment, which had dismissed the intra-court appeal as not maintainable. The Court clarified the distinction between Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. It held that orders of statutory tribunals (like the State Transport Appellate Tribunal) can be challenged either under Article 226 (writ jurisdiction) or Article 227 (supervisory jurisdiction), and the litigant has the option to choose. The maintainability of an intra-court appeal depends on the nature of jurisdiction invoked, not merely the prayer clauses. Since the appellant had invoked Article 226, an intra-court appeal was maintainable. On merits, the Court found that the State Transport Authority and the Single Judge had erred in rejecting the appellant's permit application without proper consideration. The matter was remanded to the STAT for fresh decision.

Relevant Facts

• The appellant applied for a stage carriage permit on three routes, including the Bikaner–Ganganagar route.

• The State Transport Authority (STA) rejected the application on the ground that the appellant had already been granted a permit on another route, but the specific route was not mentioned.

• The State Transport Appellate Tribunal (STAT) affirmed the rejection, stating that the appellant had not surrendered the "previously issued permit."

• The appellant filed a writ petition under Article 226 before the High Court, which was dismissed by a Single Judge on the ground that the appellant had offered a single vehicle for multiple routes.

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.