Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The Executive Committee Of Central ... vs T. Santha Rao on 23 December, 2019
Author: M.Venkata Ramana
Bench: M.Venkata Ramana
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.VENKATA RAMANA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1852 of 2019
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is directed against order of the court of learned V Additional District Judge, Guntur, in I.A.No. 8 of 2019 in SOP No. 1 of 2019, dated 30.05.2019.
2. The petitioners therein are the revision petitions herein. Similarly, respondents therein are the respondents herein.
3. The petitions instituted SOP under Section 23 of Societies Registration Act for the following reliefs:
"(a) to declare that the petitioner No.2 is the President/Bishop of Central Guntur Synod/petitioner No.1, as per the election held on 13/14/-04-2015
(b) to restrain the respondents, their men, agents, GPAs or any other persons or followers claiming through them from interfering into the activities of the petitioners in respect of petitioner No.1,and
(c) to award costs."
4. The entire dispute is in relation to certain affairs of a church and its internal administrative body known as Central Guntur Synod, belonging to Andhra Evangelical Lutheran Church. The second respondent is stated to be the Executive Council represented by one Sri K.F.Paradesi Babu of Guntur.
5. Andhra Evangelical Lutheran Church, which is hereinafter called as "AELC" has its own Constitution and by-laws, in respect of managing and conducting its internal affairs (Certain excerpts of the by-laws, which are relevant for the purpose of the present case, are marked by the petitioner as Ex.P2 in the trial Court). It has, undisputedly, different administrative units. They are known as Synods. The Apex body is AELC itself. There are separate administrative units (Synods) under its control viz., East Godavari Synod, East Guntur Synod, Central Guntur Synod, West Godavari Synod, West Guntur Synod and Visakhapatnam Synod. It is also not in dispute that for the purpose MVR,J CRP. No.1852 of 2019 2 of managing the internal affairs of the church and to regulate, there is general body known as "Convention". It shall meet annually. Article-I of by- laws (Ex.P2) referred to the areas of Synods referred to above, except Visakhapatnam Synod, which was hitherto was part of East Godavari Synod. Article-II of the bylaw is in respect of 'Conventions'. It directs by Section-1 that regular annual conventions of Synods of AELC shall be held ordinarily between 1st January and 30th April or at such times and places as shall be determined by the Executive Council of AELC.
6. These Synods, as per Article-X of the by-laws, by Section-1, have an Executive Committee composed by a President, a Vice President and two representatives from each field, half clerical and half lay and two women. They have to be elected for a term of four years by the Synod Convention by ballot upon nomination by 'the committee of nominations and credentials' of the Synod.
7. This committee of nominations and credentials has arisen under Section 2 of the Article-X of the by-laws. It also provides for another committee for Pastors. Article-VI of the by-laws refers to duties of Executive Committee of Synods and Section-2 thereof relates to Parishes. Article-VII of the by-laws relates to composition and duties of Standing Committees, whereunder Section 2 relates to committee of Pastors. It also provides for composition of the Committee of pastors as well as the duties. This committee is composed by the President of the Synod, as the Chairman, and two Indian Ministers as well as three lay persons, one of whom shall be woman and one being a Missionary. The duties of this committee of Pastors include transfers of pastors, which shall ordinarily be made before June and to become effective from 1st June of a calendar year. Section 5 under Article-VII of the by-laws also provides for composition and duties of Committee of nominations and credentials.
MVR,J CRP. No.1852 of 2019 3
8. Thus, for the purpose of internal management of the affairs of this Church, there are well defined provisions by means of its Constitution and the by-laws. It is not in dispute.
9. The complaint of the petitioners is that the second petitioner was elected and declared as President of Central Guntur Synod(For convenience, hereinafter referred to as "CGS") by the Joint Body Chairman, N&C Chairman and Observer of AELC, during its 78th Annual Convention, held on 13th & 14th April, 2015. The term of the President, according to the petitioners, is five years and in respect of the second petitioner it is in between 01.06.2015 and 31.05.2020. The petitioners also claimed that, after the convention, immediately, the 2nd petitioner took charge as Bishop and President of CGS, and by then, he was already discharging his duties as such. The second petitioner was elected twice during the years 2005 and 2010 for the same position. The petitioners further stated that, there is no provision in the Constitution and in the by-laws of AELC that approval of any of the conventions of the Synods is required, particularly, with reference to election of the President or Members of the Executive Committee, except receiving the reports of the convention from the respective Synods.
10. It is further stated by the petitioners that, transfer and appointments of pastors of various parishes in the synod were conducted by the second petitioner, after he took over charge as the President w.e.f. 01.06.2015, apart from conducting 79th, 80th, 81st and 82nd regular annual conventions in between April, 2016 and April, 2019, in the course of his duties, being authorized to deal with the affairs of the Synod.
11. The petitioners further complained that the respondents, who developed grudge against them, since the panel supported by them, was not successful in the election during April, 2015, began to create hurdles and MVR,J CRP. No.1852 of 2019 4 troubles to the second petitioner from discharging his duties and to prevent him. They pointed out about spate of litigation ensued on account of such animosity in between these two parties, referring to SOP No.390 of 2015, SOP No.458 of 2015, SOP No.723 of 2017, SOP No.236 of 2019, SOP No.1157 of 2017, SOP No.563 of 2017 and SOP No.952 of 2015, in different Courts.
12. The petitioners also complained that the respondents are trying to tamper with the records, taking advantage of their position, acting against the Constitution as well as the by-laws of AELC. Inspite of the fact that the second petitioner was duly elected as stated above, according to the petitioners, the respondents, on account of connivance in between them, to have annual conventions and to effect transfers as well as issuing notices, began to meddle in the affairs of CGS, illegally, styling the first respondent himself as the President of CGS.
13. According to the petitioners, the respondents are also propagating that the first respondent is the President of the above Synod, to the delegates and pastors, illegally, without any authority, with a view to cause obstruction to the second petitioner and to make gain for themselves.
14. Thus, setting out in the petition in I.A.No.8 of 2019 in SOP No.1 of 2019, the petitioners sought temporary injunction, pending disposal of the main O.P. under Order-39, Rule 1 and 2 CPC, r/w.151 CPC, claiming that they have prima facie case, balance of convenience and they would suffer irreparable loss and injury, if temporary injunction, as requested, is not granted.
15. The respondents resisted the claim of the petitioners giving necessary details in the counter filed in the trial court through the first respondent that was adopted by the second respondent, mainly, on the ground that the second petitioner was more than 60 years of age, to hold any post, relating to MVR,J CRP. No.1852 of 2019 5 CGS. They also stated that the petitioners resorted to suppression of material facts relating to previous litigation, where he was unsuccessful throughout, in every Court, including in this Court. They also claimed that the second petitioner was suspended on account of certain allegations as to misappropriation, as per the resolution of the Executive Council of AELC, on 18.05.2016, vide LCM 478. Thus, stating that the petitioners are not entitled for discretionary relief of temporary injunction, when the conduct of the 2nd petitioner is proved to be undeserving, denying that he ever conducted any convention including on 05.04.2017 taking over CGS, it was requested to dismiss the petition. It was also asserted that the first respondent was elected as Bishop of CGS in the convention on 24.04.2017 in St. Mathews Church of West Godavari Parish, as per the constitution and by-laws of the church.
16. In the course of enquiry before the learned trial Judge, the petitioners relied on Ex.P1 to Ex.P18 and the respondents relied on Ex.R1 to Ex.R29 apart from pleadings, in support of their respective contentions.
17. Basing on such material, contentions were advanced before the learned trial Judge, asserting their respective stands. The learned trial Judge, accepted the version of the respondents and rejected the claim of the petitioners. Accordingly, the impugned order was passed, dismissing the petition filed for grant of temporary injunction, of the petitioners.
18. Aggrieved, the present CRP is presented by the petitioners.
19. Sri V.V.N. Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, assailed the order under revision, mainly on the ground that the learned trial Judge did not consider all the documents relied on their behalf, misled himself to consider the effect of the alleged discrepancy as to the age of the second petitioner. On account of such approach of the learned trial Judge, which is reflected from the contents of the order under revision, it is stated that any MVR,J CRP. No.1852 of 2019 6 amount of prejudice is suffered by the petitioner. It is further contended that there was never any suppression of facts by the petitioners and it was the second respondent, who played mischief in order to retain control over the affairs of this Church, went on placing obstacles, one way or the other, to the second petitioner, from discharging his duties, though he was duly elected as Bishop, whose term, as per the constitution and as well as the by-laws of the church, should continue for a period of four years. Thus, stating that in the 78th convention held on 13.4.2015 & 14.4.2015, he was duly elected as the President of the Central Guntur Synod, whose term is still continuing and that any illegal activity of the respondents cannot have any bearing in the matter, it is requested to set aside the order under Revision.
20. Sri K.G. Krishna Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Sri Elisha, learned counsel for the respondents, referring to various provisions of the constitution and by-laws governing the affairs of this church, and the material on record, contended that it is clearly established in this case that the second petitioner was more than 62 years old, by the date of 78th convention, namely 13/14-04-2015, who was ineligible, as is established by his own records. It is further contended by learned Senior Counsel that various orders passed by different Courts are clearly making out that the second petitioner had never assumed the role of the President/Bishop of the CGS nor discharged such duties at any time. Referring to the material placed by the respondent before the trial Court. It is also contended that the first respondent continued to be the Bishop and President of CGS on account of his election. It is also pointed out that the alleged election claimed by the second petitioner was not ratified by the Executive Council of AELC, which is a mandatory requirement. Stating that the order under revision did not suffer from any irregularity, learned Senior Counsel, requested not to interfere with the same.
MVR,J CRP. No.1852 of 2019 7
21. Now the following points arise for determination:
1. Whether the petitioners made out prima facie case and balance of convenience in their favour?
2. Whether the petitioners would suffer irreparable loss and injury in the event of refusing to grant temporary injunction as requested against the respondents?
3. To what relief?
POINT No.1:-
22. The burden is on the petitioners to establish that they are entitled for temporary injunction as sought. Since they are claiming an equitable relief, it is also their burden to make out that their approach to the court is with clean hands and they did not resort to suppression of any material facts. In the process, they cannot rely on any weakness in the case of the respondents.
23. The contention of the second petitioner is that he has been elected as the President/Bishop of CGS in 78th annual convention held on 13.04.2015 & 14.04.2015. He further claimed that he was so declared by Joint Body Chairman, N&C Chairman and Observer of AELC and assumed charge w.e.f. 01.06.2015 and to hold such post till 31.05.2020.
24. Article-VII of the Constitution of AELC refers to the 'President', in Section-2. It prescribes eligibility by means of age, to be elected as President. According to this provision, he shall be at least 45 years of age, and shall not be eligible for election, after he has completed 61 years of age, nor may he continue in post, after he has completed 65 years of age. It also prescribes that he shall be eligible for re-election provided he has not completed 61 years of age at the time of such election. This requirement, as such, is not in dispute, since there is specific reference to it in the main petition, as well as in the affidavit of the second petitioner with reference to Article-VII of the Constitution. Though the term of office of the President is referred to therein relying on Article-VII of the constitution referring to Section-2, the petitioner, MVR,J CRP. No.1852 of 2019 8 apparently, omitted the prescription as to the age. The reason is obvious and, particularly, having regard to the history of this dispute, which has culminated in a number of petitions filed under Section 23 of Societies Registration Act, in between these parties. There is copious reference of such litigation in the affidavit of the second petitioner as well in the counter filed on behalf of the first respondent in the trial Court. Each party has referred to pendency of such cases, which are convenient to them, carefully avoiding or omitting to such instances, which are rather inconvenient for them.
25. It is not in dispute that the second petitioner held such position of Bishop/President of CGS prior to April, 2015 and prior to 78th annual convention. Ex.P3 is a copy of extract of the minutes of LCM No.467 held on 10.11.2014 of the Executive Council of AELC. In this meeting a schedule relating to Synod conventions and the places where such conventions were to be held are stated. For CGS, it was 78th annual Synod convention proposed to be held on 13th and 14th April, 2015. It was issued by the second respondent as Moderator-Bishop, AELC.
26. Ex.P4 is an extract of minutes of the meeting of Executive Council of AELC, LCM No.470 dated 31.03.2015, referring to the vacancy position to various bodies. In respect of CGS at Guntur, one of the notified vacancies was of the Bishop to be elected in the place of Rev.Ch.Elia (second petitioner) for the term 2015-2020 among others. It was also issued by the second respondent.
27. Ex.P5 dated 09.04.2015 is copy of the letter addressed to Dr. G.Daniel, appointing him as an Official Observer of CGS convention, a copy of which was marked to the Bishop, CGS. Ex.P6 is also copy of the letter addressed to Dr. G.Daniel, Principal, AL College of Education, Guntur, referring to the 78th annual convention of 13th and 14th of April, 2015, requesting permission to MVR,J CRP. No.1852 of 2019 9 hold the same in Prayer Hall of A.L.College of Education, Guntur. It refers the second petitioner, then Synod Bishop, being authorized to conduct the Synod convention. This communication was also issued by the second respondent on 10.04.2015.
28. Ex.P7 is the minutes of 78th Annual Convention of CGS, where the second petitioner claimed that he was elected as the President/Bishop of this Synod. It also records the fact that the name of the second petitioner was deleted in the eligibility list and that basing on the information provided by the second petitioner that his date of birth is in the year 1958, as was held by this Court, such representation of the second petitioner was appreciated resolving to include the name of the second petitioner in the eligibility list. It also recorded the protest raised by a minority among the members against such inclusion and yet, nomination of the second petitioner was considered, who was declared elected. This document is seriously questioned on behalf of the respondents stating that surreptitiously the second petitioner got himself included in the eligibility list. Thus, Ex.P7 is a seriously disputed document. It is necessary that there should be support to this document by other material to accept and hold prima facie that he was so elected.
29. The petitioners also relied on Ex.P10- an order in I.A.No.80 of 2015 in SOP No.1 of 2015 on the file of the Court of learned II Additional District Judge, Guntur, dated 28.05.2015. It was a petition filed under Order-39, rule 1 and 2 CPC by one Sri Bolleddu Mathew, Member of AELC Executive Council against AELC, the second petitioner herein and one Sri T.J.Vara Prasad Babu, to restrain the second petitioner herein from interfering in administrative affairs, operation of accounts and transfer of pastors as Synod President/ Bishop of CGS. The above petition was dismissed and observations recorded in the above order that the second petitioner is eligible to contest the above election during 78th Annual convention, is highlighted.
MVR,J CRP. No.1852 of 2019 10
30. Ex.P11 is a copy of order in I.A.No.2031 of 2015 in SOP No.458 of 2015. It is also a petition filed under Order-39, Rules 1 and 2 CPC by the second petitioner himself against AELC, respondents 1 and 2 herein and others. Request of the second petitioner therein was to grant a temporary injunction restraining the respondents therein from interfering with his business in performing his duties as the President, duly elected in 78th annual convention of CGS. As the respondent in the above O.P., he filed petition and it was allowed by the order in Ex.P11. However, it has to be noted that SOP No.458 of 2015 was dismissed, as seen from Ex.P12, on 19.09.2016. Therefore, the interlocutory order so passed referred to Ex.P11 has lost its effect, since got merged in the order covered by Ex.P12.
31. SOP No.723 of 2017 was filed before learned I Additional District Judge, Guntur. Ex.R21 is the copy of the order dated 08.06.2018 therein. It was a petition filed by the very same petitioners in this revision petition, under Section 23 of Societies Registration Act, to declare issuance of transfer orders/appointments by the respondents herein, representing CGS, as null and void, and to grant permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with the administrative activities and discharging functions by the petitioners. On contest, SOP No.723 of 2017 was dismissed, as per Ex.P21 order. As against it, the petitioners carried revision in CRP No.4166 of 2018 to this Court. It was also dismissed upon elaborate consideration of the claims of the parties by order dated 15.12.2018. However, it is contended for the petitioners that this CRP No.4166 of 2016 was dismissed on a technical ground for failing to produce the record relating to election of the second petitioner as the president of CGS. This circumstance, infact, raises a question relating to the effect of Ex.P7, on the strength of which, the second petitioner claims that he was declared and elected as the President of this Synod.
MVR,J CRP. No.1852 of 2019 11
32. Effect of Ex.P16 is profound, on the present proceedings. It certainly questions the status claimed by the second petitioner as the elected president of CGS.
33. SOP No.390 of 2015 was filed by the first respondent herein, on the file of the Court of II Additional District Judge, Guntur, questioning the eligibility of the second petitioner herein to contest in 78th Annual Convention, pointing out that he was over-aged. However, it was dismissed for default on 19.06.2018. Ex.P15 is the certified copy of the order in SOP No.390 of 2015 dated 19.06.2018. It is relied on for the petitioners to support their version as to the election of the second petitioner as the president of CGS during 78th annual convention and to show that this ground as to prescription of age or its bar, as alleged by the respondents was not pursued and that it was purposely abandoned.
34. As seen from such material placed by the petitioners, it is not prima facie brought out whether the election of the second petitioner as the President of CGS was itself accepted and pursuant thereto if he had discharged any of the duties in his administrative capacity. Referring to various SOPs or orders therein, cannot be a right substitute. As already stated, the profound effect of dismissal of CRP No.4166 of 2018, as seen from Ex.P16, in relation to the claim of the petitioners of the very same nature, except for slight difference, leads to hold that the petitioners did not prima facie make out that the second petitioner, infact, was in effective control of CGS, on the date of filing of the petition. It is the prima requirement to grant relief of temporary injunction. When there are circumstances which doubt the very claim of the petitioners, in this context, it is but necessary to draw such an inference. Thus, the petitioners have failed to discharge the burden to establish these circumstances prima facie, for grant of temporary injunction, as is ordained by law.
MVR,J CRP. No.1852 of 2019 12
35. The contention of the respondents is that by the date of 78th Annual Convention, the second petitioner did not meet the requirements of Article- VII, Section 2 of the Constitution, in respect of age, since had already completed 61 years. To establish this fact, prima facie, they relied on Ex.R1, a copy of Provident Fund application of the second petitioner himself on 14.07.1983. His date of birth is shown 15.05.1953 in this application. Ex.R2 is the copy of age certificate issued by "Government of Andhra Pradesh", showing his date of birth as 15.05.1953. Ex.R3 is the minutes of the Executive Council of AELC in respect of the meeting held on 07.04.1984. It refers to the second petitioner as the candidate for ordination to East Godavari Synod and relating to PPSEA project. It also records the date of birth of the second petitioner as 15.05.1953, apart from referring to the name of his wife and two sons. Ex.R4 is a copy of voters' identity card of the second petitioner reflecting the same date of birth viz., 15.05.1953.
36. The above are the documents, which relate to the second petitioner. They relate to such period, where there was no dispute or controversy among the parties. Further, the role of the second petitioner himself, being closely associated with these documents by then, has to be taken into consideration. Therefore, these documents are required to be accepted and to hold that they prima facie establish the date of birth of the second petitioner being 15.05.1953.
37. Ex.R6 is stated to be statement of the second petitioner, for the purpose of an enquiry ordered by RDO, Gurzala relating to the date of birth of the second petitioner.
38. In respect of consideration of these documents, as to date of birth, a serious objection is raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners stating that there is an order of then composite High Court at Hyderabad, vide Ex.P8, suspending the order so passed by RDO, Gurazala. It is relatable to Ex.R6. By MVR,J CRP. No.1852 of 2019 13 order in WPMP No.9962 of 2015 in W.P.No.7514 of 2015, dated 23.03.2015, the order of RDO, Gurazala, was suspended.
39. Ex.P8 order affects the order passed by RDO, Gurazala. But, it does not constitute an absolute bar to refer to other material on record with reference to the age of second petitioner. Therefore, strenuous contentions advance in this regard with reference to Ex.P8 by the learned counsel for petitioners, cannot stand. Ex.P8 will not come in the way of considering the effect of Ex.R1 to Ex.R4, in the light of qualification of age required to contest such election. As prescribed by Section 2 of Article-VII of the Constitution of AELC, by the date of 78th annual convention relating to CGS, the second petitioner was more than 61 years old (62 years). Therefore, even on prima facie consideration, such bar remains applicable to the second petitioner.
40. It is the contention on behalf of the petitioners that any finding recorded in this context will effect the merits of the claim in the main petition. When it is the burden of the petitioners to make out prima facie case, this factor bears imminence and it cannot be overlooked.
41. Thus, this factor fatally affects the claim of the petitioners.
42. Contentions are also advanced on behalf of the respondents referring to outcome of SOP No.767 of 2015 (Ex.R14) filed by the petitioners on the file of III-Additional District Judge, Guntur, I.A.No.125 of 2015 in SOP No.158 of 2015 (Ex.R15) on the file of the learned PDJ, Guntur, SOP No.585 of 2016 ( Ex.R16), SOP No.394 of 2015 (Ex.R17) on the file of learned Principal District Judge, Guntur, as well as SOP No.561 of 2017(Ex.R18) on the file of the learned IV Additional District Judge, Guntur. The effect of these orders has bearing in this case, particularly, in questioning the approach of the petitioners in this matter for equitable relief.
MVR,J CRP. No.1852 of 2019 14
43. As seen from Ex.R23, in the meeting of the first Joint Body, on 30.04.2019, the first respondent is shown as an ordained delegate of CGS for the purpose of 49th biennial convention of AELC to be held during 28th and 29th May, 2019 at AC College, Guntur. Ex.R25 dated 09.04.2019 of AELC describes the first respondent as Bishop, CGS and it is a report of 82nd Annual Convention of CGS held on 8th and 9th April, 2019, at Heyer hall compound, Guntur. Observer report, a copy of which is filed as Ex.R23 of the above annual convention, is also relied on for the respondents in this context. When all these documents are taken into consideration, as against the claim of the petitioners, they do interject the claim of petitioners of prima facie case in respect of their status as far as CGS is concerned.
44. When the very dispute is about the status of the second petitioner as President and Bishop of CGS, it is prima facie established that there is want of appropriate material to support the version of the petitioners. To substantiate their claim, sufficient material is placed by the respondents in rebutting such claim of the petitioners. All these disputed questions of facts are required to be considered by the trial court, in a full fledged enquiry, in the main petition, adducing evidence, by the parties.
45. In this backdrop, it has to be held, the petitioners failed to make out prima facie case in their favour. Consequently, balance of convenience, on a comparative scale, is held in favour of the respondents than the petitioners. Thus, the petitioners failed to make out these two invariable requirements for grant of temporary injunction. Thus, this point is held. POINT No.2:-
46. In view of the findings recorded on point No.1, it cannot be stated that the petitioners suffer irreparable loss and injury, if the temporary injunction requested by them is refused. The learned trial Judge, took in to MVR,J CRP. No.1852 of 2019 15 consideration all these factors in proper perspective and, has recorded clear findings, in all respects. They have to be confirmed. Thus, this point is held. POINT No.3:-
47. In view of findings on points 1 and 2, this CRP has to be dismissed, confirming the order of the learned trial Judge.
In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the order of the court of learned V Additional District Judge, Guntur, in I.A.No. 8 of 2019 in SOP No. 1 of 2019, dated 30.05.2019, stands confirmed. No costs.
As sequel thereto, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Subsisting interim order stands vacated.
________________________ JUSTICE M.VENKATA RAMANA Dt: 23.12.2019.
RRR MVR,J CRP. No.1852 of 2019 16 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.VENKATA RAMANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1852 of 2019 DATE: 23-12-2019 RRR