Intra-Court Appeal by Non-Party in Writ Proceedings: Supreme Court Holds Special Appeal Maintainable Where Order Adversely Affects Rights and Violates Natural Justice
Case Name: Abhishek Gupta v. Dinesh Kumar & Ors.
Citation: 2025 INSC 1406
Date of Judgment/Order: 03 December 2025
Bench: Dipankar Datta, Augustine George Masih
Held: The Supreme Court held that an intra-court (special) appeal by a non-party to a writ petition is maintainable where the order of the Single Judge prejudicially affects the rights of such person and was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing, notwithstanding the apparent bar under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.
Summary: The appellant was granted a fair price shop licence after cancellation of the licence of the first respondent. The first respondent successfully challenged the cancellation before a Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court, resulting in an order restoring his licence. The appellant, whose licence stood displaced by this order, was not impleaded as a party in the writ proceedings.
Aggrieved, the appellant preferred an intra-court appeal before the Division Bench, contending that the Single Judge’s order adversely affected his rights without granting him an opportunity of hearing. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal as not maintainable under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, relying on the Full Bench decision in Sheet Gupta v. State of U.P., while granting liberty to seek review.
The Supreme Court analysed Rule 5, the Full Bench ruling in Sheet Gupta, and the underlying object of restricting special appeals. It held that the Full Bench had not considered situations involving non-joinder of necessary parties. The Court emphasised that Rule 5 must be interpreted to advance access to justice and cannot be applied mechanically to defeat natural justice.
The Court reaffirmed settled law that a person who was not a party to proceedings, but whose rights are prejudicially affected by a judicial order, has a right to challenge such order by seeking leave to appeal. It held that review jurisdiction is narrower than appellate jurisdiction and may not provide an equally effective remedy in such circumstances.
Decision: The appeals were disposed of. The Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench judgment dismissing the special appeal as not maintainable and restored the special appeal to its original number for adjudication on merits by the Division Bench. The Court clarified that the interim arrangement regarding the fair price shop shall abide by the outcome of the special appeal, and no opinion was expressed on the merits of the dispute.