By the Court.—The question of maintainability of a Special Appeal has intrigued this Court on many a occasion, but the one presented before us is of that genre that is rarely argued with such consuming passion, that it is difficult to resist the temptation of answering it once again. The past precedents with a renewed vigour have been tabled on the dias, praying for a turn in the law, and to cast off all doubts that shroud the legal canvas which according to the learned gentleman at the bar requires a fresh varnish.

2. The appellant complains of injustice-of not being showered with the benefit of an interim order by the learned Single Judge inspite of having a strong prima facie case and a balance of convenience in his favour with a clear threat of irreparable injury of ouster from management as the term of the appellant committee was coming to an end. Thus, the withholding of an interim order by the learned Single Judge has impelled the writ petitioner to file this appeal, which proposition is being opposed by the respondents contending that the appeal is not maintainable in the given circumstances.

3. This appeal arises out of a writ petition which is still pending before the learned Single Judge, where a challenge has been raised to the order of the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits dated 8.7.2014, which the appellant alleges to be without jurisdiction, and prominently in violation of the principles of natural justice, apart from other grounds on merits.

4. The petition was entertained and the contesting private parties, who are also respondents in the present appeal, and are duly represented by their counsel who had put in appearance when the following order was passed :

“Court No. - 23

Case : MISC. SINGLE No. - 4033 of 2014

Petitioner : Sri Ghisai Ram Krishak Vidyalaya Samiti Thru Manager/Secy.

Respondent : State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Instt. Finance and others

Counsel for Petitioner : Sharad Pathak

Counsel for Respondent : C.S.C.,Santosh Shukla

Hon’ble Sudhir Kumar Saxena, J.

Vakalatnama filed by Sri M.B. Singh, Advocate on behalf of opposite party No. 5 and also vakalatnama filed by Sri Saurabh Shukla, Advocate on behalf of opposite party No. 3 are taken on record.

List in the next week alongwith W.P. No. 2979 (MS) of 2014, W.P. No. 3232 (MS) of 2014 & W.P. No. 1243 (MS) of 2014.

Prayer of interim order will be considered on the next date.

Order Date : 24.7.2014"

5. Dr. L.P. Misra, learned counsel for the appellant contends that when the matter came up next, the contesting respondent Nos. 3 and 4 claimed that a consequential order has been passed by the District Basic Education Officer on 21.7.2014, which also deserved to be quashed, and an amendment application was filed challenging the said order of the Basic Education Officer which amendment was allowed, but no interim orders were passed. Sri Misra submits that the amended writ petition was directed to be supplied to the respondents and the impugned order dated 15.10.2014 was passed. The said order which is under appeal is extracted hereinunder :

“Court No. - 26

Case : MISC. SINGLE No. - 4033 of 2014

Petitioner : Sri Ghisai Ram Krishak Vidyalaya Samiti Thru Manager/Secy.

Respondent : State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Instt. Finance and others

Counsel for Petitioner : Sharad Pathak

Counsel for Respondent : C.S.C.,M B Singh,Santosh Shukla,Saurabh Shukla

Hon’ble Ajai Lamba, J.

Let a copy of the amended writ petition be supplied to learned counsel for the respondents.

Let counter-affidavit be filed positively within ten days from today.

Rejoinder-affidavit, if any, be filed within one week thereof.

List thereafter.

Order Date : 15.10.2014"

6. Dr. L.P. Misra, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that since the learned Single Judge did not grant any interim order, the order dated 15.10.2014, extracted above, amounts to a refusal to grant an interim relief, that was essential and urgent on the facts and circumstances of the present case and, therefor