The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to refer any doubt or dispute regarding elections to the Prescribed Authority for a decision in accordance with law under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860.

1. Heard Sri G.C. Verma, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri M.B. Singh, leaned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 and 4 and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

2. This Special Appeal has been filed questioning the refusal to exercise discretion in favour of the appellants to grant an interim relief as prayed for by the impugned order dated 7.4.2016 on the ground that the learned Single has not appreciated the issue of jurisdiction involved in the controversy and therefore, the observation that the elections shall be held subject to final decision of the writ petition, was not the appropriate relief.

3. A preliminary objection has been taken by the learned Standing Counsel to the maintainability of the Appeal contending that the Special Appeal is not maintainable against the impugned order. On this issue, the matter is no longer res integra in view of the Full Decision of our Court in the case of Ashutosh Shrotriya and others v. Vice-Chancellor, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar University and others [ (2015) 4 UPLBEC 2673 Para 34 (part), Para 36 (part) and para 37] which are extracted hereunder: -

"34. ... The judgment in Ghisai Ram Krishak Vidyalaya Samiti cannot be read as taking away the discretion of the appellate Court and its unquestioned jurisdiction to enquire into the maintainability of an appeal on the tests which have been laid down by the Supreme Court.

"36. ... If such a submission is urged, it must be recorded and dealt with however briefly to obviate a grievance that an application for ad interim relief was pressed but not dealt with. A purely procedural direction of calling for a counter affidavit and rejoinder would not be amenable to a special appeal since it decides no rights and does not affect the vital and substantive rights of parties. However, the appellate Court has the unquestioned jurisdiction to decide whether the direction is of a procedural nature against which a special appeal is not maintainable or whether the interlocutory order decides matters of moment or affects vital and valuable rights of parties and works serious injustice to the party concerned. Where the Division Bench in a special appeal is of the view that the order of the learned Single Judge is not just a procedural direction but would result in a grave detriment to substantive rights of an irreversible nature, the jurisdiction of the Court is wide enough to intervene at the behest of an aggrieved litigant. The Rules of Court are in aid of justice. We, therefore, affirm the principle that a purely processual order of the nature upon which the reference is made would not be amenable to a special appeal not being a judgment. The Division Bench will have to decide in the facts of each case, the nature of the order passed by a Single Judge while determining whether the appeal is maintainable."

"37. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we answer the question of law referred to the full Bench by holding that, an order of a learned Single Judge upon a petition under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution only calling for counter and rejoinder affidavits is merely a procedural order in aid of the progression of the case. An order of this nature which is purely of a procedural nature in aid of the progression of the case and to enable the Court to form a considered view after a counter affidavit and a rejoinder are filed would not be amenable to a special appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5. Such an order does not decide anything nor does it have the trappings of finality. If a party to the proceedings seeks to press an application for ad interim relief of a protective nature even before a counter affidavit is filed, on the ground that a situation of irretrievable injustice may result or that its substantive rights would be adversely affected in the meantime, such an argument must be addressed before the Single Judge. If such an argument is urged, it should be dealt with however briefly, consistent with the stage of the c