JUDGMENT

Heard Ms. Bulbul Godiyal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ram Raj Ojha and Ms. Pallavi Vatsala for the appellants, learned State Counsel representing the State Authorities and Sri M. B. Singh, learned Counsel representing respondent No.4.

2. This intra-Court Appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court assails an order dated 11.04.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby Writ-C No. 16057 of 2021 filed by the appellants-petitioners has been dismissed on the ground that number of persons, who had made the Reference before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under section 25 (1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, were not impleaded as party-respondents, hence, the writ petition suffered from vice of non-joinder of necessary parties.

3. At the outset, Sri M. B. Singh, learned Counsel representing respondent No.4 has questioned the maintainability of this Special Appeal stating that in this case, the learned Single Judge has exercised his jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in respect of an order passed by a Statutory Authority, namely Sub-Divisional Magistrate under section 25 (1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, as such in terms of provisions contained in Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT RULES , 1952, this Special Appeal would not be maintainable. To fortify his submissions, he has cited the judgements in the cases of (i) Jai Prakash Agarwal v. Prescribed Authority (Sub-Divisional Magistrate), Sadar, District Deoria and others [1999 (1) UPLBEC 697], (ii) Mohd. Tabib Khan v. State of U.P. and others [2007 (10) ADJ 578], (iii) Sri Arya Mahila Hitkarini Mahaparishad, Lahurabir, Varanasi & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors, Special Appeal no. 938 of 2008, decided on 08.08.2008, (iv) C/M Madras Azimul Uloom and another v. Prescribed Authority/Up Zila Adhikari and four others, Special Appeal Defective No.162 of 2016, decided on 28.03.2016, (v) Amit Kumar Singh v. Baha Bariyar Shah Memorial Association & Others [2016 (8) ADJ 143] and (vi) C/M Veer Eklavya Uchahatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya and another v. Sub- Divisional Magistrate and two others, Special Appeal Defective No. 462 of 2020, decided on 27.08.2020.

4. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants-petitioners, in reply, submits that since the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not touch upon the merits of the matter, hence the judgements cited by the learned Counsel representing respondent No.4 are not attracted in this case.

5. When we peruse the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 11.04.2023 which is under appeal, what we find is that the petition filed by the appellants-petitioners was dismissed solely on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties in the sense that though the Reference under Section 25 (1) before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was made by 71 persons, however, only one of them was impleaded as party-respondent. It is true that in case any Reference is made to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Section 25 (1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate proceeds to adjudicate the issue(s) raised by such persons making the Reference, each and every person is likely to be affected by the order which may be passed or by adjudication which may be made by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Section 25 (1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Thus all 71 persons, who had made the Reference before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, were necessary parties before the learned Single Judge.

6. However, having observed as above, we also find that the defect on the basis of which the writ petition has been dismissed is a cura