Mr.S.A.Kulkarni, advocate for & Ors. v. Presiding Officer" 2007 (1) Bom.C.R.205. A Single Bench of this Court held & Ors.

Though the petition was wrongly placed before this Court and ordinarily should have been enlisted before the Division Bench, yet, the error was not pointed out at the relevant time by either side. In other words, the parties to the petition acquiesced to the jurisdiction of the Single Bench. The Writ jurisdiction available under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is available to all the Benches, may be a Single Bench or may be a Division Bench, and that the judgment rendered by this Court can not be regarded as a judgment without jurisdiction. It is well settled that there may be error within the jurisdiction and there may be error outside the jurisdiction. In this context, when the error is within the jurisdiction, the judgment or order does not become nullity. So, if at all there has occurred error due to wrong placement of the petition before the Single Bench and that final decision is rendered then also the same can not be treated as nullity and no necessary step is required to be taken for recalling of the 4 same. Mr.Kulkarni, invited my attention to the "State of Maharashtra and others Vs. Presiding Officer and others" 2007 (1) Bom.C.R.205. A Single Bench of this Court held that the consent or acquisition can not give jurisdiction to a Court if it does not possess one. There can not be two opinion about the proposition of law as laid down in the given case. In the present case, however, this Court has jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, and there is no inherent lack of jurisdiction as such. Therefore, the observations in the above referred case are of no application to the present case. The application is dismissed.