Appeal lies against orders lacking statutory appellate remedy only if jurisdictional error renders them a nullity.

The Assistant Registrar, Jhansi, passed a composite order on 13.06.2025 under Section 25(2) and Section 4-B of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, declaring a society defunct and finalizing a list of 20 members

This order was challenged in an appeal before the Commissioner, who set aside the Assistant Registrar's order on 13.02.2026 and declared a different list of 10 members as valid

The learned Single Judge set aside the Commissioner’s order but remitted the matter back to the Commissioner to decide the appeal specifically regarding the Section 25(2) portion of the order

Both parties filed Special Appeals: one challenging the maintainability of the appeal/remand, and the other challenging the finding that no appeal lies against an order under Section 4-B

1. Whether a Special Appeal is maintainable against a Single Judge's order arising from an appellate order passed by an authority lacking statutory jurisdiction

2. Whether the Societies Registration Act, 1860, provides for an appeal to the Commissioner against orders passed under Section 25(2) [para. 13-14] or Section 4-B

The court applied Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, which restricts special appeals against orders passed in the "exercise or purported exercise" of appellate jurisdiction

Section 25(1)(d) provides an appeal only against orders of the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1)

Section 4(1-A) provides an appeal only against orders under Section 4, not Section 4-B

The court relied on Sardar Mohammad Ansar Khan v. State of U.P. [para. 17] and Abhishek Pandey v. State of U.P. [para. 39] to differentiate between "statutory" and "coram non-judice" exercises of power.

The court reasoned that "purported exercise" of appellate jurisdiction under High Court Rule 5 only applies where the statute actually grants such jurisdiction. Since the Act of 1860 does not provide for an appeal against orders under Section 25(2) or Section 4-B, the Commissioner’s act of entertaining the appeal was a nullity and not a "purported exercise" of statutory jurisdiction; thus, the Special Appeal is maintainable

On the merits, the court noted that jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent or by a court order if the statute does not grant it

Regarding Section 4-B, the court held that while the 2022 Amendment created an appeal for Section 4 via Section 4(1-A), it intentionally omitted doing so for Section 4-B, which remains an independent provision

Consequently, the Single Judge erred in remanding the matter to a forum (the Commissioner) that lacked the legal authority to hear it

Special Appeal Defective No. 337 of 2026 was dismissed, affirming that no statutory appeal lies against an order passed under Section 4-B

The court granted liberty to the aggrieved parties to seek remedies before the appropriate legal forum against the Assistant Registrar's original order