By the Court.—A learned Single Judge has granted an interim relief to the respondent petitioner, vide impugned order dated 22.1.2016 and aggrieved, the respondent appellant has approached this Court questioning the correctness thereof including the jurisdiction of the learned Single Judge to entertain the petition on behalf of the respondent petitioner who, according to the appellant, does not have any locus or cause of action to maintain the petition.

2. Sri Anupam Mehrotra has advanced his submissions on the merit of the claim to substantiate the stand of the appellant urging that the learned Single Judge was neither justified in entertaining the petition nor did there exist any prima facie case in favour of the respondent petitioner for grant of any interim relief.

3. A preliminary objection has been taken by Sri Sandeep Dixit who appears for the respondent petitioner, contending that the special appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 which is an intra-Court appeal, would not lie and for that, Sri Dixit has relied on the Division Bench Judgment in the case of Jai Prakash Agrawal v. Prescribed Authority (Sub-Divisional Magistrate), Sadar, District Deoria and others, (1999) 1 UPLBEC 697. He has also invited the attention of the Court to the Division Bench Judgment dated 28.3.2016 in Special Appeal Defective No. 162 of 2016: Committee of Management Madarsa Azimul Ulcom and another v. Prescribed Authority/Up Zila Adhikari and 4 others. The third decision is dated 22.2.2016, in Special Appeal No. 92 of 2015:Committee of Management Baba Mangal Das Shiksha Samiti and 3 others v. Prescribed Authority and 12 others.

4. On the strength of these decisions, Sri Dixit urges that the order impugned in the writ petition being that of the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 which attracts the trappings of a Tribunal in relation to an election dispute of a society, and is therefore not amenable to further scrutiny in an intra-Court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 in view of the ratio of the decisions referred to hereinabove.

5. To counter this preliminary objection, Sri Anupam Mehrotra has urged that if the proceedings before the learned Single Judge were not maintainable, then the exercise of power under Article 226 would be lacking in jurisdiction and consequently, a special appeal would be maintainable. For this, he contends that the respondent petitioner had no locus to maintain the petition on behalf of the Committee of Management of the society inasmuch as, Hari Pal Singh was neither the elected Manager nor was he duly authorized by the valid Committee of Management to file the writ petition.

6. He further submitted that the learned Single Judge committed a manifest error by allowing Hari Pal Singh to be impleaded through an oral order as the petitioner No. 2 in the writ petition in spite of the fact that Hari Pal Singh had no individual cause of action nor did he fall within the parameters of an aggrieved person so as to question the impugned order in the writ petition. He thirdly contends that even otherwise, the petition could have been maintained in order to serve the cause of the society and protect its interest. The entire writ petition nowhere indicates as to what cause was to be served and how was the society being protected by filing of the writ petition. Sri Mehrotra submits that this issue has completely escaped the notice of the learned single Judge who, therefore, assumed the jurisdiction resulting in manifest error, and since it is a matter relating to the jurisdiction of the learned Single Judge to entertain the petition, therefore an intra-Court appeal would be maintainable.

7. The next limb of the argument of Sri Anupam Mehrotra is that even assuming though not admitting that the writ petition could have been filed by Hari Pal Singh claiming himself to be the Manager, then too, there were two reliefs claimed one against the order of Prescribed Authority which was in relatio