Special Appeal Not Maintainable Against Routine PIL Orders That Don't Affect Valuable Rights Of Parties: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that 'Special Appeals' under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, are not maintainable against routine orders passed by the Single Judge if they don't determine the rights and obligations of the parties. "…an interlocutory order to be appealable under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules must adversely affect the valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect. In order to constitute 'appealable order', the adverse effect on a party must be direct and immediate and not indirect or remote", a bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Praveen Kumar Giri held. The Division Bench held so while dismissing a special appeal filed against a May 26, 2025, order passed by a Single Judge in PIL No. 1375 of 2025. Briefly put, the appeal, filed by the respondent no. 5 in the PIL (appellant in Special Appeal), essentially challenged the Single Judge's directions for submission of reports by administrative authorities in the matter and the filing of a counter-affidavit by the appellant. It was argued that the Single Judge had exceeded his jurisdiction by passing the orders in the said petition when the petitioner himself wanted to withdraw the petition. It was added that the court had granted certain reliefs to the petitioner that would have a negative impact upon his valuable rights Referring to the impugned order, the Division Bench observed that the Single Judge had refused to allow the withdrawal of the PIL as the Counsel for the petitioner counsel had alleged that the withdrawal was due to pressure and threats by respondent no. 5 (appellant in the present case), who was described as a land mafia with a criminal history of 16 cases. The Single Judge had directed the Secretary (Home), the DGP, and local revenue officers to be made parties and to submit a report regarding the alleged encroachment by respondent no. 5 on Gaon Sabha and public utility land. Against this backdrop, the Division Bench found that the order impugned sought merely reports and required the appellant to file a counter-affidavit explaining his criminal history. Relying on precedents including Shah Babulal Khimji vs Jayaben D. Kania And Anr 1981, Sandeep Agarwal And Ors. vs Adarsh Chadha And Ors. 2002 and the Full Bench decision of the Court in Ashutosh Shrotiya vs Vice-Chancellor, Dr B R Ambedkar University 2015, the Division Bench noted that "unless an order has the trappings of a final order and/ or affects the valuable rights of a party causing serious injustice to a party, no appeal would lie before the Division Bench from the order passed by a Single Judge of this Court". Importantly, the division bench referred to the following observation made by the full bench in Ashutosh Shrotiya case (supra): "Where a judge requires the filing of a counter affidavit by the respondent and a rejoinder by the petitioner in response, this is in the nature of a procedural direction to enable the Court to have a full disclosure of the underlying facts and issues so as to facilitate a decision. The object of such a direction is to enable the Single Judge to be apprised of facts relevant and material to arriving at a considered view. Such a direction is in aid of the progression of the case. It does not decide the matter or issue in controversy. The lis continues to remain pending before the Single Judge. The Court would apply its mind to the merits of the controversy, for the purpose of deciding an application for interim relief and eventually for the final disposal of the writ proceedings after affidavits are filed. This is a procedural order and not a judgment". Thus, the division bench held that routine orders passed by a Single Judge seeking reports and/or directing affidavits to be exchanged that would facilitate the progress of a case would not constitute a judgment as the same does not finally determine the rights and obligations of the parties. In view of this, the Court concluded that the order under challenge "is neither an interim nor a final order affecting the interest of any party". It clarified that the Single Judge had only sought to ascertain the truthfulness of the allegations made in the PIL and had not taken any view on the maintainability of the petition. Significantly, the Bench also observed that the special appeal was not filed by the petitioner seeking to withdraw the PIL but by the respondent no. 5 against whom serious allegations were made. "This itself raises questions on the maintainability of the special appeal", the Court added. Consequently, finding that no decision had been taken by the Single Judge on the maintainability of the PIL, nor were any valuable rights of the appellant affected by the impugned order, the Court dismissed the special appeal as not being maintainable. Before parting, the Court granted the appellant three more weeks' time to...

Special Appeal Not Maintainable Against Routine PIL Orders That Don't Affect Valuable Rights Of Parties: Allahabad High Court

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags