The court held that the maintainability of an appeal under Section 25(1)(d) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, against an order passed under Section 25(2) should be decided as a preliminary issue before the appeal is adjudicated on its merits.

1. Heard Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sourabh Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Naman Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 4, and learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2.

2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

“i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari calling for the records of the case and to quash the impugned order dated 07.04.2026 passed by the Commissioner, Meerut Region, Meerut, respondent no.2 (Annexure No.34 to the writ petition).

ii. Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction as this Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against the impugned order dated 07.02.2025 passed under Section 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, an appeal was preferred on 06.08.2025 along with an application for condonation of delay. The said appeal came to be allowed on 19.01.2026 without condoning the delay.

4. It is submitted that the petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ- C No. 5088 of 2026 and this Court, placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India vs.Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) through his legal heirs, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 489, remitted the matter back with a direction that the question of delay be considered first and only thereafter, depending upon the outcome, the appeal be heard on merits.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that once again the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut, without application of mind and without recording any finding regarding sufficiency of cause for not preferring the appeal within the prescribed period of one month, has passed the impugned order dated 15.04.2026.

6. Reliance has been placed upon the proviso to Section 25(1)(d) of the Act, 1860, wherein it has been provided that the appellate authority may admit the appeal after expiry of the prescribed period if satisfied that sufficient cause existed for not preferring the appeal within such period.

7. It has further been argued that, in the first place itself, the appeal was not maintainable inasmuch as Section 25(1)(d) of the Act, 1860 contemplates an appeal only against an order passed under the said provision and not against an order passed under Section 25(2) of the Act, 1860.

8. Per contra, Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the delay has been condoned in the interest of justice and, since this is the second round of litigation, this Court may not interfere in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India merely on technical grounds.

9. In rejoinder affidavit Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that even otherwise the appeal itself was not maintainable and the authority ought to have first considered the objection regarding maintainability.

10. Although the impugned order dated 07.04.2026 is alleged to be vitiated on technical grounds, this Court finds that the interest of justice would be adequately protected if the issue regarding maintainability of the appeal under Section 25(1)(d) of the Act, 1860 is examined as a preliminary issue by the Commissioner, to which the counsel for the parties, have no objection.

11. In view of the aforesaid, without interfering with the impugn