Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:29061-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 45 of 2025 Appellant :- Subhanti Rai and 5 others Respondent :- Committee of Management of Van Awadh Gram Shiksha Mandal District Mau and 19 others Counsel for Appellant :- Arvind Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- A.K. Goyal (A.C.S.C.), Prabhakar Awasthi, Gautam Baghel, Om Prakash Singh Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 21.11.2024 passed in Writ-C No. 38434 of 2024, whereby learned Single Judge, while issuing notice to the unrepresented respondents in the petition, permitted the six members to run the Society for its benefit during the pendency of the writ petition. 2. The writ petition was filed by the respondents aggrieved of the order dated 17.10.2024 passed by Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh by which the order dated 11.01.2024 passed by Assistant Registrar registering the list of office bearers of the Society, namely, Van Awadh Gram Shiksha Mandal, District Mau. Learned Single Judge, after noticing the contentions raised by the parties and noting the stand of the appellants herein that they had no objection to the election of six members, who were elected on 17.11.2023, while entertaining the writ petition, passed the order impugned. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the present appeal. Submissions were made that the order impugned before learned Single Judge dated 17.10.2024 was passed on appeal by Commissioner, Azamgarh and as the writ petitioni arose out of an appellate order passed under State Act, the Special Appeal is not maintainable and, therefore, the same deserves dismissal on the said ground alone. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants made submissions that the plea raised in this regard cannot be countenanced in view of the judgment in I.N.G. Vysya Bank Ltd. Vs. Shamken Spinners Ltd. and others : 2010 (8) ADJ 543, wherein a similar nature preliminary objection was rejected by the Court. Reliance was also placed on a Full Bench decision in Rajit Ram Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others : 2024 (7) ADJ 747 (FB). Further submissions were made that the learned Single Judge by passing the order impugned permitting the six members to run the Society, has practically ordered violation of the bye-laws, which under the bye- laws 6, 7 and 8 provides for a definite mode for running the Society and on that count also, the order impugned is required to be interfered with. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 6. The provisions of Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 are very specific prohibiting special appeal in a case where an order is made in exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution in respect of any judgment, order or award 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 Uttar Pradesh Act. 7. Admittedly, the order impugned dated 17.10.2024 has been passed by the Commissioner exercising appellate powers under the State Act and, therefore, the special appeal clearly is not maintainable. The judgment in the case of I.N.G. Vysya Bank Ltd. (supra) has no application to the present case inasmuch as the appeal in the said judgment arose from an order passed under Section 391/394 of the Companies Act by learned Company Judge. Further, the same Bench in Kapil Dev Vs. Virendra Kumar Rastogi and others : 2010 (10) ADJ 494 (DB) distinguished the said judgment while dismissing the appeal as not maintainable. 8. The judgment in the case of Rajit Ram Yadav (supra) dealt with a case pertaining to an appellate order passed under U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Other than Officers) Service Regulations, 1981 wherein it was held that the Regulations, though were framed by the State, the same were framed under the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950, which was referable to List-I, Entry-43 and 44 of the Constitution and the framing of the Regulations was referable to the power of Parliament under List-I. As such, the said judgment also, apparently, has no application to the facts of the present case. 9. In view thereof, the present special appeal is not maintainable. The submissions made pertaining to the fall out of the directions given by the learned Single Judge can very well be brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge by way of an appropriate procedure and merely because in the submissions of the appellant, such an order could not have been passed, by itself does not confer jurisdiction on this Court to entertain the special appeal. 10. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. Order Date :- 28.2.2025 P.Sri. (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) Digitally signed by :- PUNEET SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad