- (1.) This Special Appeal has been filed under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules to assail the order dated 27 August 2013 by which an order of punishment was imposed upon the writ petitioners, who is the appellant herein, as also the order dated 28 November 2013 by which the appeal filed by the writ petitioners before the Appellate Authority to assail the basic order was dismissed.
(2.) Though number of submissions have been made by learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Sanjai Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank states that this Special Appeal would not be maintainable as it arises out of an order passed in a writ petition in which an appellate order was assailed.
(3.) We find substances in the submission advanced by learned counsel for the respondent-Bank. The Special Appeal would not be maintainable in view of the decision of this Court in Hasib Ahmad v. State of U.P. and others, 2008 6 ADJ 757as the writ petition had been filed to assail an appellate order also. The observations are as follows:- "In the present case, the appellate power had been exercised by the Commissioner under Rule 28 of U.P. Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order, 2004 which had been framed under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Thus the appellate power exercised by the Commissioner in the present case referable to an appellate power conferred under an Act. Thus according to the ratio of the Division Bench in the case of Ram Dhyan Singh , the present appeal is not maintainable under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court. The Special Appeal having been filed against a judgment of learned Single Judge arising out of a writ petition in which appellate order passed by the Commissioner was challenged which appellate order was passed in exercise of appellate jurisdiction under an Act is not maintainable under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court." The Special Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed as not maintainable.;