Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Andhra Evangelical Lutheran Church ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 7 May, 2021
Author: R. Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R. Raghunandan Rao
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
W.P.No.4781 of 2021
ORDER:
The petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'AELC') is a society, which was initially registered, under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. AELC consists of six synods, viz., Central Guntur Synod, East Guntur Synod, West Guntur Synod, East Godavari Synod, West Godavari Synod and Visakha Synod. These synods are further divided into several Parishes. These Parishes are again categories as 'A, B and C' according to their strength and their financial capacity. For the purpose of governing the internal affairs of AELC, each synod has an executive committee for administering the affairs of the synod. Further every synod holds a convention every year while the main convention for AELC will be held once in every two years.
2. The tenure of six synods expired on 31.05.2020. The earlier election schedule issued on 14.04.2020 had to be given up and a fresh election notification was issued on 16.06.2020 by the executive council of AELC, which is the main executive authority, in relation to the affairs of the AELC, authorising the deponent to the writ affidavit to conduct elections. Accordingly, elections for the six synods were conducted on 23.11.2020. While the said elections were under process, the deponent to the writ affidavit had approached this Court by way of W.P.No.21776 of 2020 for a direction against respondents 2 to 7 from interfering in the election process. This Court, by way of an interim order, dated 02.11.2020, had directed respondents 2 to 7 therein not to interfere with the election process till 24.11.2020.
2 RRR,J W.P.No.4781 of 2021
3. After the elections had been conducted and the Executive Council of AELC had approved the elections, the writ petition had become infructuous and was dismissed accordingly on 30.11.2020
4. It is the contention of the deponent to the writ affidavit that he was elected as President of AELC/Moderator Bishop on 28.05.2017 and had took charge on 01.06.2017. It is his case that he was remained as the President/Moderator Bishop till 31.05.2021 as the tenure fixed under Article VII (2)(a) of the AELC Constitution is four years.
5. At that stage, one Pastor Rev. Ch. Elia approached the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru, West Godavari District by way of O.S.No.55 of 2020 for certain reliefs against the petitioner and the deponent to the writ affidavit. In the application filed in the said suit for temporary injunction numbered as I.A.No.221 of 2020, the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Eluru had granted ad interim injunction. This order was challenged before this Court by way of C.R.P.No.35 of 2021. By an order dated 15.01.2021 in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in the above C.R.P., this Court had suspended the orders of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru. By a separate order dated 15.01.2021 in I.A.No.3 of 2021 in the same C.R.P., this Court had also directed respondents 4 to 6 herein, not to allow the unofficial respondents in the above C.R.P., to enter into the AELC office. One of the unofficial respondents in the above C.R.P., was Sri Paster Rev.Dr. Elia.
6. After the said orders were passed, respondents 4 to 6 locked the main building of the AELC in Guntur and posted picket in front of the office and also out side the gate of the compound wall. Instead of allowing the petitioner to enter into the building and carry on the activities 3 RRR,J W.P.No.4781 of 2021 of the AELC, respondents 4 to 6 prevented the deponent to the affidavit from entering into the premises. In view of the action of respondents 4 to 6, C.C.No.107 of 2021 was filed before this Court to punish respondents 4 to 6 for violation of the orders of this Court and a Form-I notice was also issued to respondents 4 to 6. The said contempt case is presently pending.
7. As respondents 4 to 6 had locked the premises and were preventing the rightful office bearers of the petitioner from entering into the premises, the present writ petition has been filed to declare the action of respondents 4 to 6 in locking the office of AELC and preventing the deponent to the writ affidavit from discharging his duties as Moderator Bishop and consequently pass necessary orders.
8. While the writ petition was pending, I.A.No.2 of 2021 was filed by respondents 7 and 8 to implead them as parties to the writ petition. This application was allowed on 29.04.2021. in the said I.A., the 7th respondent is again described as AELC rep. by its President/Moderator Bishop, viz., Most. Rt. Rev. Dr. Elia Ch., and the 8th respondent is the Executive Council of AELC rep. by Dr. Elia.
9. The contentions raised by Dr. Elia are:-
a) It is true that the deponent to the writ affidavit was initially elected as the President/Moderator Bishop of AELC in 2017. However, in the elections conducted for the six synods in 2020, the persons who were opposing the deponent to the writ petition had been elected to all the offices in the synods. At that stage, the deponent to the writ affidavit got opposed about the said election as well as results and tried to threaten the synod presidents and other office bearers falling in line with him. He 4 RRR,J W.P.No.4781 of 2021 also tried to convene 83rd Annual Convention in an illegal manner. Against these activities of the deponent to the writ affidavit, the four synod presidents had filed suits and obtained ad interim injunctions. However, these are not being shown at any place.
b) It is submitted that apart from these actions, a meeting of the AELC Council and delegates was conducted on 16.08.2020 regarding the attitude and activities of the petitioners. Subsequently, another meeting of the AELC Council and delegates was conducted on 31.08.2020 for calling a special convention for recalling/expelling the deponent to the writ affidavit. Thereupon, the Adjudication Committee/Six Man Committee issued notice to the petitioner to attend before it on 08.09.2020 in the AELC office, Guntur to offer his explanation, failing which the matter would be decided without his presence. Despite receipt of this notice on 02.09.2020, the deponent to the writ affidavit did not choose to appear before the Committee and accordingly on 08.09.2020 orders were passed removing the deponent to the writ affidavit as president/Moderator Bishop. The copy of the said order was served on the deponent to the writ affidavit on 09.09.2020.
c) After the removal of the deponent to the writ affidavit, the AELC Council delegates meeting was held on 01.10.2020 for finalising the ad hoc committee and for conducting the Special Commission/Election of AELC. Thereafter, a meeting was held on 10.11.2020 for deciding the method/process of election of Chairman, Observer and recording Secretary for conducting Biennial Convention/Election, was also held. On the basis of these proceedings, a special convention was conducted on 20/21.11.2020 at Christhu Luthern Church at Venkatayapalem, Thulluru 5 RRR,J W.P.No.4781 of 2021 (M) Guntur District. In the election conducted in this convention, Dr. Elia was elected as Moderator Bishop of AELC.
d) As the deponent to the writ affidavit was interfering with the affairs of AELC even after he was removed and a new President was elected, O.S.No.55 of 2020 came to be filed in the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Eluru against the orders obtained in I.A.No.221 of 2020 in the said suit, C.R.P. mentioned above was filed and orders were obtained.
e) It is the case of Dr. Elia that on account of the deponent to the writ affidavit being removed and on account of being elected as President, he has taken charge of the main office building of AELC and had been looking into the affairs of AELC. The further contention is that the building is firmly under the control of Dr. Elia and in view of the orders of the High Court in the above mentioned C.R.P, he had locked up the building and was not entering into the building.
10. The 6th respondent has filed a separate counter. In this counter it is stated that no criminal cases have been registered in all these disputes. However, in view of the various directions issued in O.S.No.55 of 2020 as well as C.R.P.No.35 of 2021 before this Court, the police, in order to maintain law and order and keeping in mind the physical and verbal attacks being indulged by both the groups, arranged a picket to ensure that no law and order problem would arise. The 5th respondent also took the stand that all the remaining allegations including the allegation respondents 4 to 6 locked up the building and did not allow the deponent to the writ affidavit to enter into the premises are false.
6 RRR,J W.P.No.4781 of 2021
11. Sri K.G. Krishna Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in the writ petition would submit that the orders have been obtained by the other side in O.S.No.55 of 2020 wherein Dr. Babu and his associates etc., were injuncted from interfering in the administration of the society and not to conduct any biennial convention and special convention in respect of the administration of the West Godavari Synod, till 31.12.2020. This order was suspended by this Court by an order dated 15.01.2021 in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in C.R.P.No.35 of 2021. Apart from this, this Court had also granted an order on 15.01.2021 in I.A.No.3 of 2021 in C.R.P.No.35 of 2021 directing respondents 4 to 6 in the present writ petition not to allow Dr. Elia to enter into the AELC office, Becker Compound, Brodipet, Guntur. He submits that in view of the above directions of this Court, the action of respondents 4 to 6 in locking up the building and refusing to allow Dr. Babu and his supporters from entering into the premises of the society, is violative of the orders of this Court and as such a direction is to be issued to respondents 4 to 6 to allow the petitioner to enter into the building and toe unlock the building.
12. Sri K.G. Krishna Murthy, learned Senior Counsel also relies upon the following judgments of this Court, in J. Lakshmi @ Lakshmamma and another v. Commissioner of Police and Others1; Masthan Saheb v. P.S.R. Anjaneyulu2; and the judgment in W.P.No.15981 of 2020, dated 11.09.2020, to contend that the police cannot interfere in a private and civil dispute between the parties.
13. Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the implead respondents submits that the prayer in the writ 1 2004 (2) ALD Crl. 477 2 2002 (2) ALD (Crl.) 706 (A.P.) 7 RRR,J W.P.No.4781 of 2021 petition is for a declaration that the action of respondents 4 to 6 in locking the office premises of the petitioner and preventing the petitioner from discharging his duties as Moderator Bishop, is incorrect in as much as, the discharge of duties as a Moderator Bishop can be done even out side the office premises, and in any event, the said declaration may not arise as it is Dr. Elia, who had placed lock and key over the premises of the office of the society and had offered to deposit the said keys with this court.
14. Sri L. Ravichander, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Dr. Elia would submit that Dr. Babu had been removed as Moderator Bishop in September 2020 itself, and as such, he would not be entitled to enter the premises and act as the Moderator Bishop of the society. He would also submit that the entire case is erected upon the order of this Court dated 15.01.2021 in C.R.P.No.35 of 2021. The said order only suspended the order of the trial Court. As the suit filed before the trial Court along with the applications have already been withdrawn, the order of this Court would not survive such withdrawal. He also submits that even if the orders of this Court are said to be in force, the order of suspension passed by this Court on 15.01.2021 is not a positive direction that Dr. Babu is entitled to continue as Moderator Bishop of the society or to operate from the office of the society. Sri L. Ravichander further submits that as it was Dr. Elia, who had locked the office, the question of police opening the locks would not arise.
Consideration of the Court:
15. The issue, whether Dr. Babu continues as a Moderator Bishop or not and whether Dr. Elia is the present Moderator Bishop of the society, is a dispute which cannot be resolved in these proceedings. It 8 RRR,J W.P.No.4781 of 2021 appears that some proceedings have already been initiated in relation to the said dispute. In these circumstances, this Court is not going into the said dispute.
16. The prayer in the writ petition is framed on the premise that it was respondents 4 to 6 which had locked up the office building. On that basis the prayer in the writ petition is for a declaration that the action of respondents 4 to 6 in locking up the building is illegal and for a consequential direction to respondents 4 to 6 to remove the lock and permit Dr. Babu to work as the Moderator Bishop of the society.
17. The stand of Dr. Elia, as seen from the affidavit filed in support of the implead petition being I.A.No.2 of 2021, is that Dr. Elia and other office bearers of the society were in possession of the office building and upon receiving the directions of this Court dated 15.01.2021, directing respondents 4 to 6 not to allow Dr. Elia into the building, had locked up the building. There is a specific averment in the affidavit that Dr. Elia is ready and willing to deposit the keys of the office building and the compound, with this Court. The stand of respondents 4 to 6 is that they had posted a picket to ensure that there was no law and order problem.
18. Sri K.G. Krishna Murthy, learned Senior Counsel would draw the attention of this Court to the counter affidavit filed by Dr. Elia, in C.C.No.107 of 2021. He sumits that Dr. Elia never took the stand, in that counter affidavit, that he was in possession of the office of the society or that he had locked the office of the society. Sri K.G. Krishna Murthy, learned Senior Counsel submits that the present allegation that Dr. Elia 9 RRR,J W.P.No.4781 of 2021 had locked the office is an after thought and it was respondents 4 to 6 who had locked the office.
19. The stand taken by respondents 4 to 6 read with the pleadings of Dr. Elia, makes it clear that respondents 4 to 6 are denying that they have locked up the premises of the society. In view of the positive assertion made by Dr. Elia that he had locked up the building, this Court cannot now hold that the office was locked up by respondents 4 to 6.
20. The question whether Dr. Elia could have locked up the building or not and whether he is entitled to do so, is a matter which needs to be gone into before the appropriate Court in a properly framed proceedings.
21. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner herein to approach the appropriate Court of law to resolve all the aforesaid issues. It is also necessary to direct respondents 4 to 6 to implement the orders of this Court in I.A.No.3 of 2021 not to allow Dr. Elia to enter into the office of the society as long as the orders of this Court in I.A.No.3 of 2021 in C.R.P.No.35 of 2021, dated 15.01.2021 are subsisting. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.
7th May, 2021 Js.
Issue C.C. Tomorrow 10 RRR,J W.P.No.4781 of 2021 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO W.P.No.4781 of 2021 7th May, 2021 Js.