Special Appeal Maintainable Against Non-Speaking Order of Single Judge Despite Bar Under Allahabad High Court Rules

The appellant challenged an order dated 24.02.2026 passed by a Single Judge in Writ-C No. 140 of 2026

The writ petition had been filed by a Committee of Management against the Deputy Registrar’s order cancelling their society’s registration under Section 12-D(1)(c) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and subsequent appellate/review orders

The Single Judge set aside the appellate orders and remitted the case solely on the ground that the law in Laljimal Dharamshala Society was not correctly considered, without providing any factual discussion or detailed reasoning

The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the Special Appeal was barred under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952

1. Whether a Special Appeal is maintainable under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules against a Single Judge's order that is ex-facie non-speaking and violates principles of natural justice

2. Whether the requirement of recording reasons in a judicial order is an indispensable component of natural justice that can relax statutory bars on appeals

Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, which generally bars intra-court appeals against orders passed by a Single Judge exercising jurisdiction under Article 226/227 in respect of appellate or revisional orders of statutory authorities

The bar in Rule 5 must yield to foundational principles of natural justice to ensure "access to justice" [Abhishek Gupta v. Dinesh Kumar (2025 INSC 1406)]

Recording cogent reasons is a mandatory facet of the rule of law and judicial accountability [Kranti Associates Private Limited v. Masood Ahmed Khan (2010)]

The Court observed that while a plain reading of Rule 5 and the Full Bench decision in Sheet Gupta v. State of U.P. would suggest the appeal is barred, the specific nature of the impugned order required an exception.

The Single Judge’s order was found to be "ex facie non-speaking," containing "not a word" regarding the facts of the case, the contents of the impugned orders, or the specific legal applicability of the cited precedent (Laljimal)

Applying the Abhishek Gupta rationale, the Court reasoned that since the failure to provide reasons is a violation of natural justice (the "life blood of judicial decision making"), the statutory bar under Rule 5 stands relaxed.

The Court distinguished previous contrary precedents cited by the respondent, noting they did not address the specific context of a non-speaking order

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Single Judge’s order dated 24.02.2026, and restored Writ-C No. 140 of 2026 to the original file for a fresh decision on its merits.