This Supreme Court held that the bar against intra-court appeals under the Allahabad High Court Rules must yield to natural justice. Where a Single Judge’s order prejudices a non-party, that person can appeal with leave. The Court reaffirmed that procedural rules cannot thwart the right to a remedy (ubi jus, ibi remedium) for affected persons.
Facts Of The Case:
A fair price shop license granted to Respondent No. 1 was revoked by the licensing authority for breaching its terms and conditions. Pursuant to this revocation, the license was allotted to the Appellant, Abhishek Gupta. Respondent No. 1 challenged the revocation order and its appellate affirmation before the Allahabad High Court by filing a writ petition. Critically, the Appellant, who was the current allottee of the shop and would be directly affected by any adverse order, was not impleaded as a party to these proceedings.The Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the revocation of Respondent No. 1’s license and directing his reinstatement. Anticipating that this order would force him to lose the shop, the Appellant approached a Division Bench with an intra-court special appeal, arguing he was prejudiced without being heard. The Division Bench dismissed his appeal as not maintainable under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, which bars such appeals from a Single Judge’s order in writ jurisdiction concerning matters under specified enactments, though it granted him liberty to seek review. Aggrieved, the Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.
Procedural History:
The case originated with Respondent No. 1 filing a writ petition before a Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court, challenging the revocation of his fair price shop license and its affirmation by the appellate authority. The Single Judge allowed this writ petition on June 10, 2025, setting aside the revocation and reinstating Respondent No. 1’s license, without the Appellant being a party to those proceedings.Aggrieved by this order, the Appellant approached a Division Bench of the same High Court through an intra-court special appeal. The Division Bench, by judgment dated October 30, 2025, dismissed the appeal as not maintainable, relying on Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, and the Full Bench decision in Sheet Gupta v. State of U.P. interpreting that rule. However, the Division Bench granted the Appellant liberty to apply for review of the Single Judge’s order.The Appellant then approached the Supreme Court by filing special leave petitions, challenging both the Division Bench’s order dismissing his appeal and the Single Judge’s original order that had reinstated Respondent No. 1. The Supreme Court granted leave, condoned delays, and proceeded to hear the matter, ultimately disposing of the appeals by setting aside the Division Bench’s order and restoring the special appeal for fresh adjudication.
READ ALSO:Supreme Court Clarifies: No Fresh SLP Allowed After Unconditional Withdrawal of Earlier Petition
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court made several critical observations regarding the interplay between procedural rules and fundamental principles of justice. The Court observed that Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, which bars special appeals from Single Judge orders in writ jurisdiction, must be read and understood in a manner that advances the cause of “access to justice” and not thwart it. The Court noted that the object of such rules is to prevent a third tier of adjudication when two tiers already exist, achieving finality at the High Court level, but this object cannot defeat the foundational principles of natural justice.The Court further observed that the principle of non-joinder, though originating from the Civil Procedure Code, applies with equal force to writ proceedings, and an order passed without impleading an affected or necessary party is liable to be invalidated on that ground alone. The Court observed that the rigours of Rule 5 must yield and stand relaxed in cases where a Single Judge’s order adversely affects a party who was not a party-respondent before the Single Judge. Additionally, the Court observed that the maxim ubi jus, ibi remedium cannot be ignored, and a party suffering an adverse order in judicial proceedings where they were not noticed cannot be left remediless, especially when no fault can be attributed to them for remaining absent.
Final Decision & Judgement:
Case Details:
Case Title: Abhishek Gupta v. Dinesh Kumar & Ors. Citation: 2025 INSC 1406 Civil Appeal No.: Civil Appeal Nos. 14545-14546 of 2025 Date of Judgment: December 3, 2025 Bench/Justice Name: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih
Download The Judgement Here