The right of appeal is a substantive right existing from the date of commencement of lis and cannot be applied retrospectively.

The Petitioner society, which runs a Madarsa in Prayagraj, had its list of office bearers for 2024–25 approved by the Assistant Registrar.

Respondent No. 4 (Farid Javed Ansari) challenged the previous elections before the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, which rejected the challenge on 21.08.2021.

Respondent No. 4 initially filed a writ petition against this order but withdrew it on 27.04.2024 with liberty to pursue "alternative remedies available under law".

Subsequently, he filed Appeal No. 1105 of 2025 before the Commissioner under the newly inserted Section 25(1)(d) of the Act.

The Petitioner filed objections regarding maintainability and jurisdiction, arguing that the amendment creating the appellate forum was enacted on 18.07.2022 and could not apply to an order passed in 2021.

The Commissioner rejected the Petitioner’s objection on 10.06.2025, leading to this writ petition.

Section 25(1)(d) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (as amended by U.P. Act No. 8 of 2022), which created a new appellate forum before the Commissioner.

Principle nova constitutio futuris formam imponere debet non praeteritis (new law regulates the future, not the past).

Garikapati Veeraya v. N. Subbiah Choudhry, establishing that the right of appeal is a substantive right, not a mere matter of procedure, which vests at the commencement of the lis.

Hoosein Kasam Dada (India) Ltd. v. State of M.P. and Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra were cited to affirm that statutes affecting substantive rights are presumed prospective unless expressly made retrospective.

Jurisdiction cannot be conferred by a court order (such as a withdrawal liberty) if it is not vested by statute.

The court reasoned that since the right of appeal is a substantive right, it is governed by the law prevailing on the date the legal proceeding (lis) commenced.

In this case, the Prescribed Authority’s order was passed on 21.08.2021, nearly eleven months before the amendment dated 18.07.2022 introduced the appellate remedy under Section 25(1)(d).

The court observed that the amendment contained no express provision or necessary implication for retrospective operation.

Consequently, applying the new appellate remedy to an order passed before the amendment's effective date would constitute an impermissible retrospective application.

The court further clarified that the "liberty to pursue alternative remedies" granted in the previous writ withdrawal did not vest the Commissioner with jurisdiction that the law did not otherwise provide.

The court held that Appeal No. 1105 of 2025 was not maintainable as the underlying order predated the 2022 Amendment.

The High Court quashed the order dated 10.06.2025 and the entire proceedings of the appeal, allowing the writ petition.

It left open the possibility for Respondent No. 4 to seek a recall or review of the dismissal of his previous writ petition if it was withdrawn under a misconception of law.