Hon’ble Ashok Bhushan, J.—This Full Bench has been constituted to answer the following two questions referred by a Division Bench noticing conflict in two Division Benches of this Court :

“ (1) Whether against the order/judgment of one judge passed in vacation exercising jurisdiction in cases which are cognizable by a Division Bench an special appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court is maintainable?

(2) Whether the Division Bench judgment in Allahabad Galla Tilhan Vyapari Sangh, 25, Muthiganj and others, 1985 UPLBEC 1064 (supra) or Division Bench judgment in State of U.P. and others v. Smt. Meera Sankhwar and others, 2004 (4) AWC 3162, lays down the correct law?”

2. The facts of the case necessitating the reference briefly noted are that writ petition No. 26716 of 2008 was filed by the respondent No. 1 during summer vacations praying for order and direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the notice dated 13/14th May, 2008 convening meeting of Kshetra Panchayat for consideration of no confidence motion against Pramukh of Kshetra Panchayat, Rang Bahadur Pandey. A mandamus was also sought for directing the opposite parties not to interfere in the working of the petitioner as Pramukh. The writ petition was a Misc. writ petition cognizable by a Division Bench. However, since the writ petition was filed during the summer vacations, it was taken up by a Hon’ble Single Judge, who had jurisdiction to hear such writ petitions during summer vacations under orders of Hon’ble the Chief Justice. A limited interim order was passed by Hon’ble Single Judge on 2.6.2008. The present Special Appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court has been filed by Kuldeep Kumar Tripathi alongwith an application for Leave to Appeal, stating that the applicant had moved the no confidence motion signed by 72 members on the basis of which District Magistrate Allahabad issued notice dated 13/14th May, 2008 .

3. When the special appeal was being heard, a preliminary objection was raised by learned counsel for the respondents/writ petitioner that the order dated 2.6.2008 being an order passed by a Vacations Judge, exercising the jurisdiction of the Division Bench, the Special Appeal did not lie. Reliance was placed on a Division Bench judgment in Allahabad Galla Tilhan Vyapari Sangh, 25 Muthiganj and others v. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Allahabad and others, 1985 UPLBEC 1064. The preliminary objection was refuted by learned counsel for the appellant relying on another Division Bench judgment of this Court in State of U.P. and others v. Smt. Meera Sankhwar and others, 2004 (4) AWC 3162 for the proposition that an order passed by learned Single Judge during vacations exercising the jurisdiction of Division Bench, does not become order of Division Bench and Special Appeal is maintainable. The Division Bench hearing the Special Appeal vide its detailed order dated 14.7.2008 referred above noted two questions for consideration of larger Bench.

4. We have heard Sri A.N. Tripathi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant and Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Chief Standing Counsel assisted by Dr. Y.K. Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

5. Before we proceed to consider various aspects of the issues raised, it is relevant to have quick look on the relevant provisions of Rules of the Court pertaining to jurisdiction of Single Judges, Division Benches and the provisions of Intra-Court Appeal (Letters Patent Appeal) termed as Special Appeal under Rules of the Court. Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 referred to hereinafter as ‘High Court Rules’ made by High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in exercise of the powers conferred by Article 225 of the Constitution of India and all other powers enabling it in that behalf. Rule 3 which is interpretation clause provides : (1) In these rules unless the context otherwise requires “Bench” includes a Judge sitting alone; “Judge” means a Judge of the Court; “Speci