Legal Review and Analysis of Abhishek Gupta vs Dinesh Kumar & Ors 2025 INSC 1406
Case Synopsis
Abhishek Gupta vs. Dinesh Kumar & Ors., 2025 INSC 1406
The Supreme Court ruled that a procedural bar on intra-court appeals (under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of Allahabad High Court Rules) cannot deny a hearing to a person whose rights are directly and adversely affected by a Single Judge's writ order, if he was not impleaded as a party. Principles of natural justice and access to remedy (Ubi Jus, Ibi Remedium) override such technical bars, and the Division Bench must hear such an appeal on merits.
1. Heading of the Judgment
Case Name: Abhishek Gupta vs. Dinesh Kumar & Ors.
Citation: 2025 INSC 1406
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judges: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih
Date of Judgment: 3rd December 2025
2. Related Laws and Sections
Constitution of India:
Article 226: Power of High Courts to issue writs.
Article 136: Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court.Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952:
Chapter VIII Rule 5: Governs the maintainability of intra-court Special Appeals (Letters Patent Appeals) from judgments of a Single Judge.Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
Principle of Non-Joinder: The doctrine that a suit or proceeding may be invalid if a necessary party is not impleaded.General Legal Principles & Maxims:
Principles of Natural Justice (Audi Alteram Partem).
Maxim: Ubi Jus, Ibi Remedium (Where there is a right, there is a remedy).
3. Basic Judgment Details
A. Facts of the Case:
The respondent No. 1, Dinesh Kumar, had his fair price shop license revoked. The appellant, Abhishek Gupta, was subsequently allotted this shop.
Dinesh Kumar challenged the revocation order before the Allahabad High Court in a writ petition (Writ C No. 37063 of 2019). Crucially, he did not implead Abhishek Gupta (the new allottee) as a party to this petition.
A Single Judge allowed the writ petition on 10th June 2025, set aside the revocation order, and directed the reinstatement of Dinesh Kumar.
This order directly affected Abhishek Gupta, who would lose the shop. He filed an intra-court Special Appeal before a Division Bench of the High Court.
The Division Bench dismissed his appeal as not maintainable. It relied on Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules and the Full Bench judgment in Sheet Gupta v. State of U.P., which bars appeals against Single Judge orders in writ petitions challenging appellate/revisional orders under specific State/Central Acts.
Aggrieved, Abhishek Gupta appealed to the Supreme Court.
B. Issues Before the Supreme Court:
Whether an intra-court appeal filed by a person, who was a necessary party but was not impleaded in the original writ petition before the Single Judge, is maintainable despite the bar under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952?
Whether the Division Bench erred in dismissing the appeal on the ground of maintainability without addressing the core grievance of denial of hearing due to non-joinder?
C. Ratio Decidendi (Court's Reasoning):
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the Division Bench's order, and restored the appellant's Special Appeal for hearing on merits. The reasoning was:
Imperative of Natural Justice Over Procedural Bars: The Court held that the bar under Rule 5 must yield to the foundational principles of natural justice. When an order passed by a Single Judge in writ jurisdiction adversely affects the rights of a person who was not a party before him, that person cannot be denied a remedy. The right to be heard (audi alteram partem) is sacrosanct.
Application of Non-Joinder Principle to Writ Jurisdiction: The Court affirmed that the principle of non-joinder of necessary parties applies to writ proceedings under Article 226. An order passed without hearing an affected party is vulnerable.
Correct Interpretation of Rule 5's Object: The Court clarified that the object of Rule 5 is to prevent a third tier of adjudication on the same lis when two tiers (quasi-judicial appeal/revision + writ before Single Judge) have already been exhausted. This object is not defeated when the appeal is filed by a new party who was never heard, as he is not seeking a "third bite at the cherry" but his first and only hearing.
Remedy for Affected Non-Party: Relying on precedents like Smt. Jatan Kanwar Golcha and State of Punjab v. Amar Singh, the Court held that a non-party can appeal with leave if the order prejudicially affects him. The maxim Ubi Jus, Ibi Remedium mandates that such a person cannot be left without an effective remedy; a review petition is an inadequate substitute for an appeal.
Duty of the Division Bench: The Supreme Court directed that in cases where a non-joinder allegation is raised in an intra-court appeal, the Division Bench should, if satisfied with the merits of the allegation, either remand the matter to the Single Judge or decide it on merits itself. It should not dismiss it on the ground of maintainability.
4. Core Principle of the Judgment
Procedural Bars Cannot Eclipse Fundamental Justice: Ensuring a Hearing for the Unheard Affected Party
The Supreme Court addressed the critical tension between strict procedural rules governing intra-court appeals and the overarching constitutional mandate of ensuring justice and fairness. The core issue was whether a technical bar to an appeal could legitimize a order passed in violation of natural justice.
Main Issue & Analysis:
The Division Bench had applied Chapter VIII Rule 5 mechanistically, viewing the appellant as a stranger seeking to challenge a writ judgment, which the rule prohibits. The Supreme Court, however, performed a purposive and justice-oriented interpretation of the rule.
The Court's analysis established a vital legal principle:
Distinguishing Between a "Party" and an "Affected Stranger": The bar under Rule 5 presupposes an adversarial proceeding where all necessary parties are present. Its purpose is to stop a party who has lost after two rounds (departmental appeal + writ) from starting a third round via intra-court appeal. This logic does not apply to a person who was never a party and whose rights are created or destroyed by the Single Judge's order. For such a person, the intra-court appeal is the first and only forum to present his case.
Hierarchy of Legal Principles: The judgment establishes a clear hierarchy. Principles of Natural Justice (especially the right to a hearing) occupy a fundamental position. A procedural rule of the High Court, like Rule 5, cannot operate to sanitize an order that is fundamentally flawed due to the denial of this right. Natural justice acts as a constitutional corrective to procedural rigour.
Access to Justice as the Ultimate Goal: The Court emphasized the principle of "access to justice." Denying a forum to a person whose livelihood (the fair price shop) is directly taken away by a court order, merely because he was not impleaded due to no fault of his own, would be a travesty of justice. The Court championed a functional approach: if the rule's application leads to injustice, the rule must be read down or its operation relaxed to serve the larger cause of justice.
Clarifying the Role of Appellate Bench: The judgment instructs Division Benches to act as guardians of fair procedure. When a non-joinder plea is raised, their primary duty is to examine its validity and provide a substantive remedy (remand or decision on merits), not to hide behind a procedural bar. This prevents the High Court's internal rules from being used as a tool to validate orders passed in breach of natural justice.
5. Final Outcome
The Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench's order dismissing the appeal. It restored the appellant's Special Appeal (intra-court appeal) for fresh hearing and disposal on merits by the Allahabad High Court Division Bench. The operation of the Single Judge's order, by which the respondent was reinstated, was made subject to the outcome of this restored appeal.
6. (MCQs) Based on the Judgment
Question 1: In Abhishek Gupta vs. Dinesh Kumar & Ors., why did the Supreme Court hold that the intra-court appeal was maintainable despite Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules?
a) Because the Single Judge's order was patently illegal on the merits of the license revocation.
b) Because the procedural bar under Rule 5 must yield to the fundamental principles of natural justice, as the appellant, a directly affected person, was never heard in the original writ proceedings.
c) Because the respondent had obtained the writ order by fraud.
d) Because the Supreme Court has unlimited power to override all High Court rules.
Question 2: According to the Supreme Court's ruling, what should a Division Bench do when an intra-court appeal is filed by a person claiming to be a necessary party who was not impleaded in the original writ petition?
a) Dismiss it automatically as time-barred.
b) Dismiss it as not maintainable under Rule 5 without any further inquiry.
c) Examine the merits of the non-joinder allegation and, if found valid, either remand the matter to the Single Judge or decide the appeal on its own merits.
d) Direct the party to file a review petition before the Single Judge as the only remedy.