'' 32. We shall now deal with Letters Patent Appeal No. 320/2008. Mr. Khajanchi has challenged the maintainability of the appeal preferred by the appellant. In our considered opinion, the issue is squarely covered in favour of the appellant by the Judgment of the Apex Court in Shahu Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and another vs. Lata P. Kore and others (2008 AIR SCW 7409) relied by Mr. Chandurkar, the learned counsel for the appellant. In the said Judgment, the Apex Court has considered several Judgments of the Apex Court including the case of Mavji C. Lakum vs. Central Bank of India (2008(7) Scale 32) in which the Apex Court held that since the writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in the grounds taken in the petition the petitioner had alleged that the order of the Tribunal was arbitrary, unreasonable, unjust and perverse, the writ petition was maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and consequently the Letters Patent Appeal was maintainable. Considering the facts in Shahu Shikshan Prasarak Mandal's case, the Apex Court held that since not only the petition was filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India but it was also averred that the order passed by the Tribunal was arbitrary, unreasonable, unjust and perverse, the petition filed under Article 226 was maintainable. In Writ Petition No. 2203/08 the petitioner has specifically averred that the impugned orders were perverse, contrary to the principle of natural justice and also to the settled principles of law. Moreover, the ground of denial of reasonable opportunity to defend the petitioner, has also been urged . Moreover, the interpretation of Section 44(1)(e) fell for consideration before the learned Single Judge. The writ petition was styled as under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the writ petition was maintainable under
