Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:123661-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 470 of 2025 Appellant :- Vinay Kumar and 18 others Respondent :- State of U.P. and 5 others Counsel for Appellant :- Prabhakar Awasthi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., G.K. Singh (Sr. Adv.), Devansh Misra, Hritudhwaj Pratap Sahi, Neeraj Srivastava, Sankalp Narain, Siddharth Khare Hon'ble Arun Bhansali, Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra, J. 1. This appeal, with an application seeking leave to appeal, has been filed by the appellants questioning the validity of order dated 11.06.2025 passed in Writ-C No. 19611 of 2025, whereby the writ petition filed by respondent no.6 against order dated 23.05.2025 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Prayagraj under Section 4-B of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (for short, 'the Act') has been allowed and the matter has been remanded back to the authority to pass a fresh order after providing an opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned. 2. The application seeking leave to appeal and the appeal have been filed on a solitary ground that though the order dated 23.05.2025 passed under Section 4-B of the Act inter alia pertains to the membership of the appellants-applicants based on the meeting dated 21.04.2024, whereby the Assistant Registrar accepted their membership of the Society, when the challenge was laid by filing Writ-C No. 19611 of 2025 by respondent no.6, the appellants-applicants were not impleaded as parties and only the Manager and the President of the Society along with official respondents were impleaded as party respondents to the writ petition. 3. Further, when the matter came up before the learned Single Judge, contention on behalf of respondent no.6 was noticed that the order dated 23.05.2025 was bad in the eyes of law and the same was liable to be set aside. Whereafter, the admission of the Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State as well as the counsel appearing for the President and the Manager of the Society was noticed and based on that, the order dated 23.05.2025 has been set aside. 4. Submissions have been made that the appellants, who were necessary parties to the writ petition filed by respondent no.6 were, on the one hand, not impleaded as parties and, on the other hand, with the collusion of respondent nos. 4 and 5, the order impugned before the learned Single Judge dated 23.05.2025 has been got set aside to the disadvantage of the appellants. 5. Submissions have been made that appellants were necessary parties to the writ petition, in whose absence, the order could not have been passed based in admission and therefore, the order deserves to be set aside. 6. Learned counsel for respondent no.6 supported the order impugned. Submissions were made that the order dated 23.05.2025 was, on its face, bad in law and therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in setting aside the said order. 7. Attempt was also made to make submissions that even in the presence of the appellants, the order dated 23.05.2025 may be examined by this Court which would also indicate that the order impugned in the writ petition was perverse and therefore, despite the plea sought to be raised by the appellants, the order impugned does not call for any interference. 8. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 9. It is not in dispute that the order dated 23.05.2025 inter alia pertains to the membership of the appellants and a specific order was passed that their inclusion as members was in accordance with law and was liable to be accepted. Once the said order dated 23.05.2025 was put in challenge, including the inclusion of appellants as members of the Society, their presence before the learned Single Judge was necessary and in their absence, the matter could not have been heard and decided irrespective of the concession recorded by the learned Standing Counsel as well as the impleaded respondent nos. 4 and 5 i.e. the Manager and the President of the Society. For non-impleadment of the necessary parties, the petition itself was not maintainable. 10. The submissions made that the order impugned may be examined by this Court in presence of the appellants, also cannot be countenanced, as the defect in the writ petition cannot be permitted to be cured by arguing the appeal in presence of the appellants. 11. Consequently, the order dated 11.06.2025 passed by learned Single Judge cannot be sustained, the same is therefore quashed and set aside. 12. The matter is remanded back to the learned Single Judge. The respondents, if so choose, may implead the appellants as party respondents to the writ petition and therefore, the matter may proceed further thereafter. 13. With the above directions, the appeal and the application seeking leave to appeal stand disposed of. Order Date :- 28.7.2025 AHA/Jyotsana (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) Digitally signed by :- AFZAL HUSAIN ABBASI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad