“The law settled on this aspect is that when the statute is silent about the right of appeal, the Courts cannot interpret and say that consequently an appeal is also maintainable. When the cases on hand are looked at in that angle, as stated supra it is only against the orders passed under sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Act and an order passed under sub-section (4) of Section 5-A of the Act, appeals are provided for under sub-section(5) of Section 5 and Section 5-B of the Act respectively and for others the Act is silent. Of course, it is the contention of learned counsel Sri V.Rama Krishna Reddy, appearing for respondents that the impugned order passed in W.P.No.13096 of 1998 is only an order passed under Section 5 of the Act, but not an order passed under Section 6-A of the Act, as contended by learned counsel Sri K.Mahipathi Rao, appearing for petitioner. Having heard the matter at length, this Court is of the view that the contention of Sri K.Mahipathi Rao and Sri Addepalli Suryanarayana, learned counsel appearing for petitioners appears to be correct and it is only an order passed under Section 6-A of the Act, but not an order passed under Section 5(1) of the Act. When once it is considered to be an order passed under Section 6-A of the Act, whether the appeal, as preferred by respondents is maintainable or not, is the question. Of course, if the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court is accepted, definitely an appeal is maintainable. But as stated supra, the Courts cannot interpret and give a right of appeal to the parties when the statute itself is silent, and as such, this Court is of the view that the matter requires re-consideration. Hence, for appreciation and determination of law on the subject, these matters have to be referred to a Division bench of this Court.”
