RAJIV SAXENA Vs. STATE OF UP
LAWS(ALL)-2010-7-115
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on July 07,2010

RAJIV SAXENA Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This special appeal is against an order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 11.5.2010. A writ petition was filed before the learned Single Judge against an order of the Prescribed Authority hearing an election dispute under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The Tribunal in the purported exercise of its powers had granted interim relief in an election dispute. The stand of the petitioners was that the learned Tribunal has no jurisdiction to grant the interim relief in the absence of any specific power so conferred on the Tribunal. The contention of the respondent-appellants herein was that the power to grant final relief would include the power of granting interim relief. The learned Single Judge after considering the rival contentions held that there is no power in the Tribunal to grant interim relief. It is against that order the present special appeal has been filed.
(2.) A preliminary objection has been taken on behalf of the respondents that in terms of Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 a special appeal would not be maintainable as the petition arose in respect of an order passed by the Tribunal. The relevant rule is being quoted below: 5. Special appeal - An appeal shall lie to the Court from a judgment (not 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 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 for 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.
(3.) On the other hand the learned counsel for the appellant placed before us several judgments of Division Benches of our court to point out that in the instant case the appeal is maintainable and the Tribunal has jurisdiction to grant interim relief.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.