The importance of refraining from making observations that may affect pending issues and the need for timely resolution of the writ petition.

JUDGMENT :

1. Objection filed by the respondents, are taken on record.

2. Heard Sri. Gajendra Pratap, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri. Salil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant, Dr. L.P. Mishra along with Sri. Prafulla Tiwari, Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 6 to 93 and Sri. Shailendra Singh Chauhan, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel representing the State-respondents.

3. This intra Court appeal under Chapter-VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 has been preferred by the respondent Nos. 6 & 7 in Writ Petition No. 14847 (M/S) of 2018; Sri. Brijesh Kumar Srivastava and 87 others v. State of U.P. and others assailing the correctness of the interim order dated 22.05.2018, whereby the learned single Judge after recording the respective arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and by a reasoned order, stayed the effect and operation of order impugned in the writ petition dated 02.05.2018 passed by the Regional Level Committee, District Lucknow recognizing the election held on 05.11.2017 of the Committee of Management of the Institution in question in which the present appellants have been elected as the President and Manager of the Institution, respectively.

4. The first preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents, which is also reflected from the office report dated 09.07.2018, is with regard to maintainability of this intra Court appeal against the interlocutory order not deciding any issue nor having any trappings of finality, referable to the issue raised in the writ petition.

5. In response to the aforesaid objection Sri. Gajendra Pratap, learned Senior Advocate has submitted that there is no denial of the facts that the order of learned single Judge is an interim order but at the same time reading of order reflects that the learned single Judge while passing the order has made certain observations and even, prima-facie the findings recorded may have bearing on the final outcome of the writ petition on merits.

6. Sri. Gajendra Pratap further submitted that writ petition itself being not maintainable at the instance of 88 petitioners, who are not members of the General Body of the Society, the learned single Judge erred not only in entertaining the writ petition but also passing an interim order. He further submits that where the petitioners do not have locus to maintain the writ petition, any order which adversely affects the right of the appellants, can be assailed in intra Court appeal.

7. His Further submission is that as the election of the office bearers of the Committee of Management of the Institution in question duly recognized by the Regional Level Committee was under challenge in the writ petition, non-joinder of the Committee of Management by the petitioners was an error which could prove fatal and, therefore, the writ petition was liable to be dismissed and the learned single Judge erred in entertaining the same and passing the interim order.

8. Sri. Gajendra Pratap, learned Senior Advocate has placed reliance on the following judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court on both the above arguments advanced by him.

1. Avtar Singh Hit v. Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee and others, reported in (2006) 8 SCC 487. The relevant para-31 reads as under:-

"31. In our view no relief could have been granted to the writ petitioner on account of the fact that the newly elected office bearers of the Executive Board, who would have been affected by the decision of the writ petitions, were not impleaded as party to the writ petitions. In Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, AIR 1963 SC 786, it was observed that where in a petition for a writ of certiorari made to the High Court, only the tribunal whose order was sought to be quashed was made a party but the persons who were parties before the lower tribunal and in whose favour the impugned order was passed were not joined as parties; the writ petition was