Allahabad High Court
Committee Of Management Maharshi ... vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 22 December, 2022
Bench: Manoj Misra, Vikas Budhwar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 29
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 833 of 2022
Appellant :- Committee Of Management Maharshi Durwasa Tapobhumi Siddhpeeth Shiv Mandir Samiti And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Nand Lal Pandey,Sushil Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
Heard Sri N.L. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
This intra-court appeal is against the judgment and order of learned Single Judge dated 19.11.2022 passed in Writ-C No. 23917 of 2020 whereby the writ petition of the appellant seeking quashing of the order dated 10.02.2020 passed by the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut and the order dated 29.06.2019 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Agra has been dismissed.
A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned Standing Counsel with regard to the maintainability of this intra-court appeal on the ground that the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition was exercising its writ jurisdiction against an appellate order passed by the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 which is referable to an Entry in the concurrent list and therefore, as per the provisions of Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the High Court Rules, the intra-court appeal would not be maintainable.
In a Full Bench decision of this Court in Special Appeal No. 1942 of 2008, Sheet Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and others decided on 11.12.2009, in respect of Single Judge decisions wherein no intra-court appeal would lie, it was held as follows:-
"Having given our anxious consideration to the various plea raised by the learned counsel for the parties, we find that from the perusal of Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules a special appeal shall lie before this Court from the judgment passed by one Judge of the Court. However, such special appeal will not lie in the following circumstances:
1.The judgment passed by one Judge in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction, in respect of a decree or order made by a Court subject to the Superintendence of the Court;
2.the order made by one Judge in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction;
3.the order made by one Judge in the exercise of the power of Superintendence of the High Court;
4.the order made by one Judge in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction;
5.the order made by one Judge in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution of India in respect of any judgment, order or award by
(i) the tribunal,
(ii) Court or
(iii) 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 of India;
6.the order made by one Judge in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India in respect of any judgment, order or award of
(i) the Government or
(ii) any officer or
(iii) authority,
made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction under any such Act, i.e. 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 of India." (Emphasis supplied)
In view of the above, the appeal is not maintainable. The same is dismissed, as such.
Order Date :- 22.12.2022
Vandit/piyush
