# Committee of Management & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 8 ILRA 1035
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-08-14
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 652 of 2025
- **Bench:** Arun Bhansali, C.J. Kshitij Shailendra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/committee-of-management-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53699
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

C.S.C.,
Ankit
Gaur
(S.C.),
Prabhakar
Awasthi

Issue for consideration
Whether
the
present
special
appeal
is
maintainable under Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the
Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952?

Headnotes
A.
Societies
Registration
Act,
1860:
Section
25(1);
Allahabad
High
Court
Rules, 1952: Chapter VIII Rule 5 - Special
appeal is not maintainable against the
order passed by the writ court in a
challenge laid to the order passed u/s
25(1) of the Act passed by the Prescribed
Authority, (Para 15)

A perusal of the said Rule (Rule 5 of Rules,
1952) reveals that restriction on maintainability
of special appeal inter alia has been provided
with regard to the order passed 'in the exercise
of the jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or
Article 227 of the Constitution' in respect of any
judgment, order or award of a tribunal, Court or
statutory arbitrator made or purported to be
made in the exercise or purported exercise of
jurisdiction under any Uttar Pradesh Act or
under any Central Act, with respect to any of
the matters enumerated in the State List or the
Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule to the
Constitution. (Para 17)
1036 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
It would be seen that the statutory provision
prescribes a bar qua the orders passed 'in
exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India'. No distinction
can be made with regard to the nature of the
order passed, i.e., interim or final, for the
purpose of examining the maintainability of the
appeal u/Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the Rules.
(Para 18)

Special appeal dismissed. (E-4)

Case Law Cited

## Text

8 All. Committee of Management & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1035
21. Learned
Counsel
for
the
appellant has referred to the judgment of
Supreme Court in State of Uttaranchal v.
Balwant Singh Chaufal and Others
reported in (2010) 3 SCC 402 emphasizing
the point that the Court must encourage
only genuine and bonafide Public Interest
Litigation and effectively discourage the
Public
Interest
Litigation
filed
for
extraneous consideration. He relies upon
paragraph 181 of the said judgment to
buttress the argument that the Public
Interest Litigation which has been sought to
be withdrawn by the petitioner itself is an
abuse of the process of Court.

22. We once again emphasise that
the question whether the Public Interest
Litigation is a bonafide exercise or not is to
be decided by the Hon'ble Single Judge as
and when the issue is raised before him.
Ergo, the judgment in Balwant Singh
Chaufal (supra) is not relevant to decide
the issue herein.

23. It is also to be noted that in the
impugned order which is under challenge
before us, no decision has been taken by
the learned Single Judge with regard to the
maintainability of the Public Interest
Litigation not does it in any manner
negatively impact the valuable rights of
any party including the appellant at this
stage.
24. Accordingly, the present special
appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.

25. As the counter affidavit has not
been filed by the appellant in the Public
Interest Litigation, the time to file counter
affidavit therein is extended by three
weeks.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 1035
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, C.J.
THE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

Special Appeal No. 652 of 2025

Committee of Management & Anr
 ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Ved Byas Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.,
Ankit
Gaur
(S.C.),
Prabhakar
Awasthi

Issue for consideration
Whether
the
present
special
appeal
is
maintainable under Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the
Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952?

Headnotes
A.
Societies
Registration
Act,
1860:
Section
25(1);
Allahabad
High
Court
Rules, 1952: Chapter VIII Rule 5 - Special
appeal is not maintainable against the
order passed by the writ court in a
challenge laid to the order passed u/s
25(1) of the Act passed by the Prescribed
Authority, (Para 15)

A perusal of the said Rule (Rule 5 of Rules,
1952) reveals that restriction on maintainability
of special appeal inter alia has been provided
with regard to the order passed 'in the exercise
of the jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or
Article 227 of the Constitution' in respect of any
judgment, order or award of a tribunal, Court or
statutory arbitrator made or purported to be
made in the exercise or purported exercise of
jurisdiction under any Uttar Pradesh Act or
under any Central Act, with respect to any of
the matters enumerated in the State List or the
Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule to the
Constitution. (Para 17)
1036 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
It would be seen that the statutory provision
prescribes a bar qua the orders passed 'in
exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India'. No distinction
can be made with regard to the nature of the
order passed, i.e., interim or final, for the
purpose of examining the maintainability of the
appeal u/Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the Rules.
(Para 18)

Special appeal dismissed. (E-4)

Case Law Cited
1. Jai Prakash Agarwal Vs. Prescribed Authority,
(1999) 1 UPLBEC 697 (Para 6)
2. Mohd Talib Khan Vs. State of U.P. and others,
(2008) 1 UPLBEC 538 (Para 6)
3. Bhupendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others,
(2010) 3 UPLBEC 2009 (Para 6)
4. Abul Kaish Khan and others Vs. Assistant
Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits and others,
Special Appeal No. 214 of 2009, decided on
07.04.2011 (Para 6)
5. Ashutosh Shrotriya and others Vs. ViceChancellor, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University and
others, (2015) 4 UPLBEC 2673 (Para 7)
6. Smt. Surati Devi and 3 others Vs. Inderjeet
and 3 others, Special Appeal No. 452 of 2016,
decided on 20.07.2016 (Para 8)

List of Acts/Statutes
Societies Registration Act, 1860; Allahabad High
Court Rules, 1952.

List of Keywords
Maintainability, validity.

Appearances for Parties
For Appellant: Ved Byas Mishra
For Respondent: C.S.C., Ankit Gaur (S.C.),
Prabhakar Awasthi

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Bhansali, C.J.
&
Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra, J.)

1. This appeal is directed against
the order dated 08.04.2025 passed by
learned Single Judge in Writ-C No. 8908 of
2025, whereby the learned Single Judge has
stayed the operation of the order dated
22.01.2025 passed in Case No. 5419 of
2024 by the Prescribed Authority/Subdivisional Magistrate under Section 25(1)
of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 ('the
Act').

2. The subject matter of the writ
petition pertains to the election of a
Society, namely, Dr. Sudama Prasad Bal
Vidya Mandir, Vigyan Kanan Kutir,
Kutchery Road, Khirni Bagh Shahar,
District Shahjahanpur, whose elections
were
held
on
27.09.2020,
in
which
respondents no. 4 and 5 were elected as
Manager and President, respectively. The
Committee of Management of the Society was
recognized
by
the
Assistant
Registrar.
Subsequently, the order was reviewed by the
Assistant Registrar by order dated 27.01.2023,
which came to be challenged before this
Court, which allowed the writ petition
referring the matter to the Prescribed Authority
under Section 25(1) of the Act. Against the
order passed, special appeal was filed wherein
interim order was granted, however, the appeal
came to be decided on 20.02.2024.

3. On reference being made, the
Prescribed Authority passed the order dated
22.01.2025, whereby the appellants herein
were recognized as President and Manager of
the Society. Feeling aggrieved, the writ
petition was filed.

4. Based on the contentions raised
before learned Single Judge, as noticed in
the order impugned, learned Single Judge
found that the matter required consideration
and granted four weeks time to the
appellants and other respondents to file
counter affidavit and four weeks' for filing
rejoinder affidavit and passed the interim
order staying the order dated 22.01.2025.
Feeling aggrieved, the present special
appeal has been filed.
8 All. Committee of Management & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1037

5. Learned counsel for the respondents
raised preliminary objection that the special
appeal is barred under Chapter VIII Rule 5
of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952
('the Rules'), as the order passed under
Section 25(1) of the Act is that of the
Tribunal and as the orders passed under
Article 226/227 against the orders passed
by the Tribunal are not open to special
appeal under the Rules, the appeal deserves
dismissal.

6. Reliance was placed on Jai
Prakash
Agarwal
Vs.
Prescribed
Authority : (1999) 1 UPLBEC 697, Mohd
Talib Khan Vs. State of U.P. and others :
(2008) 1 UPLBEC 538, Bhupendra Singh
Vs. State of U.P. and others : (2010) 3
UPLBEC 2009 and Abul Kaish Khan
and others Vs. Assistant Registrar,
Firms Societies and Chits and others :
Special Appeal No. 214 of 2009, decided
on 07.04.2011.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants
made submissions that the plea raised
pertaining to the maintainability of the
appeal has no substance as the appeal has
been filed against the interim order.
Submissions have been made that the
judgments in the case of Mohd Talib
Khan
(supra),
Bhupendra
Singh
(supra) and Abul Kaish Khan (supra)
arose out of the final orders passed in
writ petitions regarding which it was
held
that
special
appeal
is
not
maintainable, however, a Larger Bench
in Ashutosh Shrotriya and others Vs.
Vice-Chancellor, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar
University and others : (2015) 4
UPLBEC 2673 has held that the appeal
under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules
would
be
maintainable
against
an
interim order and, therefore, the plea
raised in this regard has no substance.

8. Further submissions have been
made that this Court in Smt. Surati Devi
and 3 others Vs. Inderjeet and 3 others :
Special Appeal No. 452 of 2016, decided
on 20.07.2016, relying on the order in the
case of Ashutosh Shrotriya (supra) has
laid down that as the power to grant a
direction in the writ petition is referable to
exercise of constitutional power under
Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India
by the Court, such interim order does not
eminate from the order of the lower
authority and, therefore, the appeal would
be maintainable and, therefore, the plea
raised in this regard has no substance.

9.
We
have
considered
the
submissions made by counsel for the
parties and have perused the material
available on record.

10. Undisputed facts are that the
respondents no. 3, 4 and 5 have questioned
the validity of the order passed by the
Prescribed
Authority/
Sub-divisional
Magistrate under Section 25 (1) of the Act.

11. A Division Bench of this Court in the
case of Jai Prakash Agarwal (supra), which
judgment arose out of an interim order,
whereby learned Single Judge had stayed the
operation of the order passed by the Prescribed
Authority, elaborately dealt with the issue of
maintainability of the special appeal against the
order passed in a writ petition questioning the
validity of the order passed by Prescribed
Authority and, inter alia, came to the following
conclusion:

"(14) For the reasons stated above,
our conclusion is that the Prescribed authority
under Section 25 of the Societies Registration
Act, 1860, as applicable in Uttar Pradesh, is a
tribunal and if the orders passed by the
Prescribed authority is challenged in a writ
1038 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petition under Article 226 of the constitution,
the special appeal under Rule 5 of Chapter VIII
of the Rules of the Court will not lie against the
order of the learned single Judge passed in
such a writ petition.

(15)
The
special
appeal
is,
accordingly, dismissed as not maintainable.
There will be no order as to costs."

12. The said view was followed by
another Division Bench in the case of Mohd
Talib Khan (supra) in the following manner:

"26. We are in full agreement with
the judgment and order of the Division Bench
of this Court in the case of Jai Prakash
Agarwal (supra) and that the Full Bench of
this Court has not laid down any law to the
controversy in the case of Sri Kashi Raj
Mahavidyalay, Aurai (supra) and therefore,
hold that the present special appeal which
has been filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of
the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952
against the judgment and order of the learned
Single Judge arising out of an order of the
Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of
the Societies Registration Act is legally not
maintainable."

13. In the case of Bhupendra Singh
(supra), another Division Bench following the
order in the case of Mohd Talib Khan
(supra), came to the following conclusion:

"10. In the instant case the order
of the Prescribed Authority has been
challenged by way of writ petition which
has been disposed of by the learned Single
Judge, therefore, the judgment and order
passed by the learned Single Judge cannot
be challenged by way of special appeal
under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad
High Court Rules, 1952.

11. Keeping in view the law laid
down by this Court in Mohd. Tabib Khan's
case (supra), we are of the view that this
special appeal is not maintainable.

12. Therefore, the special appeal
is dismissed as not maintainable, however,
without imposing any cost."

14. Yet another Division Bench, in the
case of Abul Kaish Khan (supra)
reiterated non maintainability of the appeal
and observed as under:

"We find that in the case of Mohd.
Talib Khan (supra) this Court has considered
the question in detail and has come to the
conclusion that the Prescribed Authority while
deciding the reference under Section 25(1)
acts as a Tribunal, therefore, the special
appeal under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Rules
of the Court is not maintainable.

We are in respectful agreement
with the view taken by the Division Bench
of this Court in Mohd. Talib Khan (supra)
and hold that the present special appeal is
not maintainable. We may mention here
that Sri M.A.Khan, learned counsel for the
appellant has also argued the matter on
merit. We have not gone into the merit of
the case as we have come to the conclusion
that the appeal is not maintainable.

The special appeal fails and is
dismissed as not maintainable."

15. From the above judgments, it is
more than apparent that against the order
passed by the writ court in a challenge laid
to the order passed under Section 25(1) of
the Act passed by the Prescribed Authority,
special appeal is not maintainable.

16. The relevant provisions under Rule
5 of Chapter VIII of the Rules, inter alia,
read as under:

"5. Special appeal. ? An appeal
shall lie to the Court from a judgment (not
8 All. Committee of Management & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1039
being a judgment passed in the exercise of
appellate jurisdiction) in respect of a
decree or order made by a Court subject to
the superintendence of the Court and not
being an order made in the exercise of
revisional jurisdiction or in the exercise of
its power of superintendence or in the
exercise of criminal jurisdiction or in the
exercise of the jurisdiction conferred by
Article
226
or
Article
227 of
the
Constitution in respect of any judgment,
order or award--(a) of a tribunal, Court or
statutory arbitrator made or purported to
be made in the exercise or purported
exercise of jurisdiction under any Uttar
Pradesh Act or under any Central Act, with
respect to any of the matters enumerated in
the State List or the Concurrent List in the
Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, or (b)
of the Government or any officer or
authority, made or purported to be made in
the exercise or purported exercise of
appellate or revisional jurisdiction under
any such Act of one Judge."

17. A perusal of the said Rule reveals
that restriction on maintainability of special
appeal inter alia has been provided with
regard to the order passed 'in the exercise
of the jurisdiction conferred by Article 226
or Article 227 of the Constitution' in
respect of any judgment, order or award of
a tribunal, Court or statutory arbitrator
made or purported to be made in the
exercise
or
purported
exercise
of
jurisdiction under any Uttar Pradesh Act or
under any Central Act, with respect to any
of the matters enumerated in the State List
or the Concurrent List in the Seventh
Schedule to the Constitution.

18. It would be seen that the statutory
provision prescribes a bar qua the orders passed
'in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India'. No distinction
can be made with regard to the nature of the
order passed, i.e., interim or final, for the purpose
of examining the maintainability of the appeal
under Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the Rules. The
submissions made, in case accepted, would lead
to contradiction in terms that though qua the final
order passed in the writ petition, special appeal
would not be maintainable, qua the interim order
passed in such writ petition, special appeal can be
maintained. Though specific time was granted to
the counsel for the appellants to make
submissions on the said aspect, he has failed to
produce anything in support.

19. Besides the above, as noticed
hereinbefore, the first judgment on the
subject matter in the case of Jai Prakash
Agarwal (supra) arose out of grant of an
interim order of identical nature, as in the
present case and, therefore, the plea sought
to be raised seeking a distinction between
the 'order interim in nature' and 'final order'
cannot be countenanced.

20. So far as judgment in the case of
Ashutosh Shrotriya (supra) is concerned, the
reference before the Larger Bench pertained to
maintainability of the appeal, wherein counter
and rejoinder affidavits are called, but no order
is passed on the stay application, either granting
or refusing to grant a stay order, which was
dealt with by the Full Bench, which aspect has
no relevance to the issue raised in the present
special appeal.

21. In the case of Smt. Surati Devi
(supra), the contention raised was noticed
and without discussing any provision
and/or implication thereof, the special
appeal was entertained, which judgment
does not lay down any law of general
application so as to make the present appeal
maintainable,
despite
the
consistent
unanimous opinion pertaining to the
maintainability of the appeal qua the order
of present nature, as notice hereinbefore.
1040 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

22. In view of the above discussion,
we are firmly of the opinion that the
present special appeal under Rule 5 of
Chapter
VIII
of
the
Rules
is
not
maintainable. The same is, therefore,
dismissed.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 1040
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 07.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.

Writ A No. 1152 of 2005

Uma Shanker Upadhyaya & Ors.
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. Through Princ. Secy. Deptt.
Of Finance & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Yogendra Misra, Pankaj Kumar Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., M.M. Asthana, Vivek Shukla

Whether a particular cut off date can be fixed by
the Government on the ground of financial
constraints while extending financial benefits?

Headnotes
A. Service Law - Once no challenge has
been raised to the GO dated 20.07.2001 as
modified
on
08.08.2001
and
the
subsequent GO dated 03.09.2001 only
being in consequence to the earlier GOs
and providing certain benefits which have
also not been claimed by the petitioners
as such no benefit can be extended to the
petitioners of the revised pay scales at par
with the Central Government Teachers
w.e.f. 01.01.1996 even on notional basis.

No challenge has been raised to the GO
dated 20.07.2001 which provided for the
revised pay scales at par with the Central
Government Teachers w.e.f. 01.07.2001.
The GO which has been challenged by the
petitioners is of 03.09.2001 which only
gives the benefit of the revised pay scales
at
par
with
the
Central
Government
Teachers
on
notional
basis
w.e.f.
01.01.1996 to only those Teachers who
were in service on 01.07.2001. No prayer
has been made even for grant of revised
pay scales w.e.f. 01.01.1996. Thus, (Para
14)

From a perusal of the three GOs (dated
20.07.2001, 08.08.2001 and 03.09.2001), it
is apparent that the revised pay scales at
par with the Central Government Teachers
was only to be given w.e.f. 01.07.2001.
Notional fixation has been extended to only
those Teachers who were in service as on
01.07.2001. (Para 8 to 11, 13)

All the petitioners had retired prior to
01.07.2001. (Para 12)

B. For the grant of additional benefit,
which had financial implications, the
prescription of a specific future date
for conferment of additional benefit,
could not be considered arbitrary. (Para
17)

Petitioners argue that the proforma fixation
for the petitioners can be considered
inasmuch as even by the subsequent GOs it
is only the proforma fixation which has
been extended to those Teachers who were
in service on 01.07.2001 and thus, the said
cut off date has been fixed arbitrarily by the
respondents. (Para 15)

Respondents contend that not only in the
case of the petitioners but also in the cases
of other departments many times decisions
are taken as to from which date the benefit
of any revised/upgraded pay structure
should be given notionally and from which
date actually and therefore if the petitioners
are allowed the benefits as per their
demand then it will have adverse effect on
the exchequer and consequently the cut off
date has correctly been fixed. (Para 16)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)