Allahabad HC Rules New Appeal Provision Cannot Apply Retrospectively

The Allahabad High Court in Committee of Management of Managing Committee of Hidaytul Muslamin School, Prayagraj and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others held that the right to appeal is a statutory right, which can only be created, enforced, or taken away by legislation. The Court observed that if such a right is to apply retrospectively, it must be expressly provided or necessarily implied by the enactment, and cannot be presumed otherwise.

A single-judge bench of Justice Siddharth Nandan heard a writ petition challenging the maintainability of an appeal filed under Section 25(1)(d) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, which was introduced by an amendment notified on 18.07.2022. The petition contested an order dated 21.08.2021 and sought quashing of the appeal proceedings initiated under the amended provision on the ground that the amendment created a substantive right of appeal that could not operate retrospectively.

The court held that the new appellate remedy could not be invoked in respect of a decision rendered before the amendment came into force and that the appellate proceedings instituted under the post-amendment provision were not maintainable. The Court relied on a long line of precedents and observed that the right of appeal was not a mere procedural right but a substantive one, which vested when the lis commenced.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "In view of the various decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this court, it is evident from long line of decisions, that the right of appeal is not merely a matter of procedure but is a substantive right and though legal pursuit of a remedy by way of suit or appeal, are steps in a series of proceedings and are to be regarded as one legal proceedings; however, the right to appeal is a statutory right and can only be enforced or taken away by an enactment; and its applicability, if is to be inferred with retrospectivity, the same has to be either expressly or by necessary implication has to be provided and not otherwise. The intention to vest right to appeal retrospectively, cannot be presumed, unless such intention is clearly manifested by expressed words or necessary implications."

The court also reproduced the earlier order which had dismissed a related writ petition "with liberty to the petitioner to pursue his alternative remedies available to him under law," and observed that a superior court could not confer jurisdiction on an authority which did not exist at the time the impugned decision was rendered.

Background:

The petitioners ran a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 which administered a grant-in-aid Madarsa. An order under Section 25(1) was passed on 21.08.2021 and was later the subject of litigation; that earlier challenge was withdrawn on 27.04.2024 with liberty to pursue alternative remedies. Thereafter, an amendment notified on 18.07.2022 was said to have inserted Section 25(1)(d) into the applicable law, creating an appellate forum. The petitioners contended that this amendment was substantive in nature and could not be applied retrospectively to create an appeal where none existed when the original order was passed; they relied on dictionary meaning of "appeal" and on established authorities.

In support of this principle the court expressly relied upon and referred to earlier decisions, citing Nagendra Nath Dey vs. Suresh Chandra Dey, Colonial Sugar Refining Co. Ltd. vs. Irving, Garikapati Veeraya vs. N. Subbiah Choudhry ( "AIR 1957 SC 540": 1957 CaseBase(SC) 77), Mukund Deo (Dead) by his legal representatives Kasibai and Others Vs. Mahadeo, Hoosein Kasam Dada (India) Ltd. vs. State of M.P., Hitendra Vishnu Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra ( "(1994) 4 SCC 602": 1994 CaseBase(SC) 832), Chirag Ashiyana Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Santosh and Another, Vithalbhai Nema Bhai Patel vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, ECGC Ltd. vs. Mokul Shriram EPC JV, Ganpat Rai Hira Lal Vs. Aggarwal Chambers of Commerce Ltd., Janardan Reddy Vs. State ( "AIR 1951 SC 217": 1950 CaseBase(SC) 12) and State of Bombay Vs. Supreme General Fils Exchange Ltd. as authority for the proposition that the right of appeal vested when the lis commenced and that a subsequent statute could take away or modify such a substantive right only by express provision or necessary implication. The court considered the notified amendment and its effect on the pre-existing lis and concluded that absent express retrospective words or necessary implication the amendment could not be invoked to revive or create appellate jurisdiction over decisions taken prior to its commencement. The court therefore quashed the impugned order dated 10.06.2025 passed in the appellate proceedings and set aside the entire appeal process initiated under Section 25(1)(d) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 as introduced by the amendment described in the record as the Societies Registration (Uttar Pradesh Amendment) Act, 2000.

The court noted the competing submission that the writ dismissal with liberty would leave the challenger remedy-less but held that a superior court could not, by way of such dismissal, vest jurisdiction in an authority where none existed at the time. The writ petition was allowed and the appellate proceedings were quashed; no order as to costs was made. The court left open the question of any independent remedy the affected party might seek in appropriate proceedings.

Case Details:
Case No.: WRIT - C No. - 22704 of 2025
Case Title: Committee of Management of Managing Committee of Hidaytul Muslamin School Prayagraj and another Versus State of U.P. and 3 others
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Gautam Baghel, Rajesh Kumar Shukla
For the Respondent(s): Ashutosh Chaubey, C.S.C., Pramod K. Gupta, Shailendra Kumar, Shivendu Ojha

Source: 2026 CaseBase(ALL) 150