Courts can mold relief and order investigations in cases of fraud, ensuring justice even beyond explicit petition requests.

JUDGMENT :

Rajan Roy, J.

(1) Heard Sri Pt. S. Chandra, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ravi Kant Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Sri Pritish Kumar, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Nishant Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents Sri Sharad Pathak, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3 and Sri Utsav Mishra, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.7 and 8.

(2) This is a special appeal under Chapter VIII Rule V of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 (in short 'the Rules, 1952') challenging an order dated 20.08.2025 passed in Writ-C No.7497 of 2025 [Bahujan Nirbal Varg Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Ltd. & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.].

(3) A preliminary objection has been raised by Sri Sharad Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the private opposite parties regarding maintainability of this appeal in view of Chapter VIII Rule V of the Rules, 1952 as, according to him, the impugned order has been passed by the writ court in a writ petition arising out of an order passed by a Statutory Arbitrator under Section 70 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 (in short 'the Act, 1965') which is an enactment referable to Entry-32 of the State List as such view of the language used in Chapter VIII Rule V aforesaid, this appeal is not maintainable. Secondly, the order impugned is an interim order, therefore, for this reason also this appeal is not maintainable as there is no finality attached to such an order especially as the appellants herein have moved an application for vacation of the same on 15.09.2025 which is still pending.

(4) On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the order passed by learned Single Judge is beyond the scope of the writ petition as also the roster assigned to him by order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice as he has proceeded to issue directions and made observations with regard to certain issues under the criminal law to the extent that he has ensured lodging of F.I.R. against the appellants herein and its investigation by a specialized agency which was not the subject matter of the writ petition and certainly not within the jurisdiction of learned Single Judge. He also submitted that by means of the impugned order, learned Single Judge has stayed the proceedings of arbitration pertaining to the election in question to the managing committee of the co-opearative society under Section 70 read with Section 71 of the Act, 1965 which was impermissible especially as a writ petition against an interlocutory order passed in such proceedings would not be maintainable especially in view of Section 71 (3) of the Act, 1965 which permits passing of interlocutory orders in such proceedings. As regards the contention that the order impugned is an interim order, therefore, not amenable to an intra-court appeal, he submitted that direction of final nature that too without jurisdiction has been issued, therefore, the order impugned has the trappings of a final order and in any case is without jurisdiction, therefore, the appeal is very much maintainable.

(5) We have perused the memo of the writ petition in which the impugned order has been passed. The relief clause of the writ petition reads as under:-

"I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 10.03.2025 passed by opposite party no. 2 in case No. 1831 of 2023 and impugned order dated 12.05.2023 passed by opposite party no. 2 in case No. 1831 of