Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
C. Ramakrishna vs Kanisetty Hari Prasad And Ors. on 20 March, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1997(2)ALT336
Author: Ramesh Madhav Bapat
Bench: Ramesh Madhav Bapat
ORDER Ramesh Madhav Bapat, J.
1. The present revision petition has been filed by one C. Ramakrishna, son of C. Narayana Swamy, Advocate-cum-Receiver of Bhagwan Sri Venkayya Swamy Humanitarian Mission, Golagamudi, V. Satram, Nellore District, aggrieved by the order passed by the learned District Judge, Nellore in LA. No. 281 of 1996 in LA. No. 66 of 1995 arising out of O-S.No. 1 of 1995 which is pending on his file.
2. In order to appreciate the points involved in this litigation, it is necessary to narrate few facts.
3. One Bhagwan Sri Venkayya Swamy was a Godly person, who had spent his life for betterment of all the persons staying around (about) Golagamudi village and therefore he had large followers. After his death, his devotees created a small Ashram in his memory. Many devotees started visiting the said Ashram and started donating huge amounts to the said Ashram. Respondents 5 to 14 herein formed an Association and established a Mission under the name of Bhagwan Sri Venkayya Swamy Humanitarian Mission and started looking after the management of the said Mission.
4. When the matters stood thus, the respondents 1 to 4 herein filed O.S. No. 1 of 1995 in the Court of District Judge, Nellore, an administrative suit for administering the property of Bhagwan Sri Venkayya Swamy Humanitarian Mission alleging corruption and misappropriation of the amount by the respondents 5 to 14 herein. It was contended by the respondents 1 to 4 herein, who were the plaintiffs in O.S.No. 1 of 1995, alleging that crops are donated to the said Ashram by the devotees of Bhagwan Sri Venkayya Swamy in addition to the cash amount. The devotees also presented gold and silver ornaments, rice and other edible oils, etc. The said articles are not accounted for by the respondents 5 to 14 herein and thus the suit for administration of Bhagwan Sri Venkayya Swamy Humanitarian Mission is pending on the file of the District Judge, Nellore.
5. When the plaintiffs had alleged corruption, mis-management and misappropriation of properties of Bhagwan Sri Venkayya Swamy Humanitarian Mission, an Advocate-Receiver was appointed on the strength of LA.No. 66 of 1995. Thus, the petitioner herein i.e., Sri C. Ramakrishna, Advocate-Receiver, started functioning as Receiver of Bhagwan Sri Venkayya Swamy Humanitarian Mission.
6. When the plaintiffs and the defendants in O.S.No. 1 of 1995 noticed that even the Advocate-Receiver started misappropriating huge amounts of Bhagwan Sri Venkayya Swamy Humanitarian Mission, they filed I.A.No. 281 of 1996 in I.A.No. 66 of 1995 in O.S.No. 1 of 1995 in the Court of the District Judge, Nellore for removal of the petitioner herein from the Office of Advocate- Receiver and also for appointment of two or more suitable persons in the shape of Ad hoc Committee by framing Rules and Regulations to manage the properties of Bhagwan Sri Venkayya Swamy Ashram in his place. The said application was allowed by the learned District Judge, Nellore by an order dated 27-12-1996. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of removal of Receiver, the present revision petition has been filed by the Advocate-Receiver.
7. The learned Counsel Mr. M.V. Ramana Reddy appearing on behalf of the petitioner/Advocate-Receiver submitted at the Bar that when I.A.No. 281 of 1996 was filed in the Court of the District Judge, Nellore, the Advocate- Receiver Mr. C. Ramakrishna filed his counter denying all the allegations made against him regarding the corruption, misappropriation and not accounting for the amounts received by the said Mission. The learned Counsel Mr. M.V, Ramana Reddy further submitted at the Bar that a joint memo was filed by the plaintiffs and the defendants in O.S. No. 1 of 1995 and on the strength of the joint memo, the learned District Judge, Nellore, removed Mr. C. Ramakrishna, Advocate from the office of the Advocate-Receiver. The learned Counsel Mr. M.V. Ramana Reddy further submitted that such order passed by the learned District Judge is improper and illegal and therefore liable to be set aside.
8. The learned Counsel Mr. M.V. Ramana Reddy further submitted that Mr. C. Ramakrishna, Advocate-Receiver, is a Senior Advocate of Nellore District Court Bar, aged about 64 years, having about 40 years of standing at Bar and having good reputation. Mr. C. Ramakrishna was also the Public Prosecutor for a long time. Under these circumstances, it was submitted by Mr. M.V. Ramana Reddy that the plaintiffs and the defendants colluded with each other so as to assassinate the reputation of Mr. C. Ramakrishna so as to enable them to get the persons or person appointed as an Advocate-Receiver to facilitate their ultimate motive of misappropriating the amounts received by the said Mission from the devotees.
9. The learned Counsel Mr. M.V. Ramana Reddy further submitted that the order passed by the learned District Judge in I.A.No. 281 of 1996 is totally mechanical and there is no application of mind by the learned District Judge. The learned Counsel Mr. M.V. Ramana Reddy further submitted that the learned District Judge ought to have thought twice before the order of removal was passed by him, removing Mr. C. Ramakrishna from the Office of the Advocate-Receiver. If such orders are passed, no Advocate in the Bar would accept the work of Advocate-Receiver in any proceedings. It is a clear case of assassination of the character of Mr. C. Ramakrishna. Under these circumstances, it was prayed by the learned Counsel Mr. M.V. Ramana Reddy to set aside the order passed by the learned District Judge, Nellore in LA. No. 281/96.
10. The learned Counsel Mr. M.V. Ramana Reddy invited my attention to the counter filed by the Receiver Mr. C. Ramakrishna in which he had narrated the improvements made by him during his tenure as an Advocate- Receiver.
11. Mr. C. Ramakrishna, Advocate-Receiver, in his counter stated that he had made arrangements to serve food for about five lakhs of people who had attended the festival. He had also made arrangements for them regarding the drinking water, sanitation and other facilities like electrification, entertainment etc. He had taken steps to keep the premises clean, to put more lights in Ashram area and bus stand near the Ashram. He had also erected the water tank for the purpose of drinking water for the devotees. In the counter Mr. C. Ramakrishna, Advocate-Receiver, totally denied to have misappropriated any amount or the amounts not accounted for. He further stated in his counter that he had taken steps to build 'Mahadwaram' near G.N.T. Road, Nellore and he had filed the estimate and the plan for necessary directions from the Court. He further stated in his counter that he had made further arrangements to give 'Prasadam' of very good quality to the devotees in minimum price of Rs. 4/- a laddu properly packed in plastic covers. With these averments, it was prayed by Mr. C. Ramakrishna in his counter that I.A.No. 281/1996 be dismissed.
12. Mr. M.V. Ramana Reddy appearing on behalf of the petitioner/ Advocate-Receiver submitted at the Bar that looking to the counter filed by the Advocate-Receiver and also looking to the statement of account filed by the Advocate-Receiver, it was not necessary for the learned Judge to remove the Advocate-Receiver from the Office of the Advocate-Receiver without making proper enquiries and without assigning reasons in the order as to whether the allegations made against the Advocate-Receiver are true or false and therefore it was submitted by Mr. M.V. Ramana Reddy that the order of removal be set aside and Mr. C. Ramakrishna, Senior Member of the Bar, be continued as an Advocate-Receiver to manage the properties of Bhagwan Sri Venkayya Swamy Humanitarian Mission.
13. While rebutting the aforesaid arguments of Mr. M.V. Ramana Reddy, the learned Counsel Mr. M.V.S. Suresh Kumar appearing on behalf of the original plaintiffs i.e., the respondents 1 to 4 herein submitted at the Bar that the submission of Mr. M.V. Ramana Reddy that the order was passed by the learned District Judge only on the strength of joint memo filed by the plaintiffs and the defendants in O.S.No. 1 of 1995 for removal of Advocate-Receiver is not correct. The learned Counsel Mr. M.V.S. Suresh Kumar further submitted at the Bar that the respondents 1 to 4 herein, who are the original plaintiffs, bore grudge against the respondents 5 to 14, who were managing the affairs of Bhagwan. Sri Venkayya Swamy Humanitarian Mission and who were misappropriating huge amounts and therefore the respondents 1 to 4 herein were required to file O.S.No. 1 of 1995 in the District Court, Nellore. Though the joint memo is filed by the plaintiffs and the defendants in O.S.No. 1 of 1995 for removal of Advocate-Receiver, it cannot be said that only on the strength of joint memo filed by the parties, the learned District Judge passed an order of removal of Advocate-Receiver. Mr. M.V.S. Suresh Kumar further submitted at the Bar that both the parties were thoroughly convinced that the Advocate-Receiver is not accounting for the huge amounts. They are convinced that the huge amounts have been misappropriated by the Advocate-Receiver. The learned Counsel Mr. M.V.S. Suresh Kumar further submitted that the accounts filed by the Advocate-Receiver himself would go Lo show that he has not accounted huge amounts in the accounts. He had also not obtained the proper vouchers for the expenditure done by him. Under these circumstances, both the parties felt that the Advocate-Receiver himself started misappropriating the huge amounts given by the devotees to Bhagwan Sri Venkayya Swamy Ashram and that is the only point on which the plaintiffs and the defendants agreed to file a joint memo for removal of the Advocate-Receiver. The learned Counsel Mr. M.V.S. Suresh Kumar further submitted that though the joint memo is filed by both the parties, the original allegations made by the plaintiffs i.e., respondents 1 to 4 herein, against the respondents 5 to 14 herein stand good as on today. The suit has to proceed with according to law and the plaintiffs will be in a position to prove their averments of misappropriation of huge amounts by respondents 5 to 14. Thus, Mr. M.V.S. Suresh Kumar emphatically submitted that the contention of Mr. M.V. Ramana Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner herein, that only on the strength of joint memo the impugned order came to be passed is totally wrong.
14. Mr. M.V.S. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 herein further brought to my notice the accounts submitted by the Advocate-Receiver himself into the Court. With reference to the accounts, it was submitted by Mr. M.V.S. Suresh Kumar that the accounts are not properly maintained. Huge amounts are not properly accounted for. Huge amounts are kept in hand and the vouchers for the expenditure were not produced by the Advocate-Receiver in the Court till this date. With factual position on record, Mr. M.V.S. Suresh Kumar, the learned Counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 herein, submitted that there is every room for suspicion for all the parties concerned to say that the Advocate-Receiver himself indulging in the corrupt practices and misappropriating huge amounts of Bhagwan Sri Venkayya Swamy Humanitarian Mission. The learned Counsel further submitted that the learned Judge has given cogent reasons for passing an order of removal of Receiver. The learned Counsel Mr. M.V.S. Suresh Kumar pointed out from the order itself as to why the learned Judge came to the conclusion of taking the decision of removal of Advocate-Receiver. Mr. M.V.S. Suresh Kumar further submitted that the learned District Judge has given as many as Nine (9) reasons for passing of the order of removal of Advocate-Receiver. Mr. M.V.S. Suresh Kumar further submitted that on factual position, the Advocate-Receiver was removed and not only on the strength of the joint memo filed by the plaintiffs and the defendants in O.S.No. 1 of 1995. Mr. M.V.S. Suresh Kumar pointed out the reasons given by the learned District Judge in his order for passing an order of removal of Advocate-Receiver. They are as follows:
(1) He has not taken custody of all the account books of the Ashram from 9th respondent, who has been acting as Manager of the properties of the Ashram;
(2) As per the account sheet, the Receiver received a total sum of Rs. 22,98,304/- in between the period from 22-7-1996 to 11-9-1996. But as per the accounts, only an amount of Rs. 3,44,000/- and Hundi collections amounting to Rs. 3,32,810/- have been deposited in Canara Bank;
(3) An amount of Rs. 16,21,494/- has been kept on hand in gross violation of the court orders;
(4) The Advocate-Receiver has opened an account in the Corporation Bank without the prior permission and sanction of the Court;
(5) He has also made attempts to withdraw the money from Canara Bank by issuing cheques even though he had not been authorised by the Court to issue cheques;
(6) The Receiver is more than 70 years of age and he had not been visiting the Ashram every day and he has been visiting the Ashram weekly twice or thrice;
(7) Apart from that, he is not maintaining daily income and expenditure of the Ashram. He has not been depositing the amounts in the Bank regularly either on every day or on every Monday but he has been depositing some amounts according to his own convenience;
(8) He has not been observing the directions given by the Court earlier when the order of Advocate-Receiver was passed;
(9) All the respondents have expressed their grievances that the Receiver had not been functioning effectively and violated the directions of the Court and had not properly maintained the accounts.
15. With the above referred reasons given by the learned District Judge in his order, the learned Counsel Mr. M.V.S. Suresh Kumar submitted at the Bar that the above reasons given by the learned District Judge are more than sufficient to pass an order of removal of Advocate-Receiver. The learned Counsel Mr. M.V.S. Suresh Kumar further submitted at the Bar that the Public as well as the devotees have started losing faith not only in the plaintiffs, the defendants and the Advocate-Receiver but also in the Court because of misappropriation made by the Advocate-Receiver. Under these circumstances, it was contended by the learned Counsel Mr. M.V.S. Suresh Kumar that not only the revision be dismissed but also an order be passed to prosecute the Advocate-Receiver.
16. While replying the aforesaid submissions of Mr. M.V.S. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 herein, the learned Counsel Mr. M.V. Ramana Reddy, appearing on behalf of the petitioner herein submitted that in the body of the order, the learned District Judge did not give the reasons for the removal of the Advocate-Receiver but he has narrated the contentions raised by the respondents 1 to 4 herein in the aforesaid I.A. Therefore, the said order has to be set aside.
17. Considering the arguments and the counter arguments advanced at the Bar, this Court is of the considered view that the learned District Judge has not assessed the evidence in proper perspective. In other words, the order is not properly worded but, this Court has no hesitation in holding that there are irregularities which may amount to illegalities in the working of the Advocate-Receiver. The Advocate-Receiver was given an opportunity to file the counter in the aforesaid LA. The Advocate-Receiver has simply stated what improvements he has made in the working of the Ashram but he has not filed all the account books and the vouchers in the Court for the reasons known to him alone. This conduct of the Advocate-Receiver creates a doubt regarding proper working of the Ashram as far as the financial matters are concerned. As a matter of fact, on receipt of the application for removal of the Advocate- Receiver, the learned District Judge ought to have got the accounts audited by the Chartered Accountant with reference to the account books and the vouchers but that was not done. This Court can say that it was a lacuna in the order of the learned District Judge. But the fact remains that in spite of giving an opportunity to the Advocate-Receiver, he did not produce all the vouchers and the account books in the Court with uptodate entries.
18. The learned Counsel Mr. M.V. Ramana Reddy appearing on behalf of the petitioner herein submitted at the Bar that the Advocate-Receiver is in possession of all vouchers. If this contention is accepted, then this Court is not in a position to appreciate the fact of non-filing the vouchers by the Advocate-Receiver into the Court for the perusal of the learned District Judge,
19. Considering the factual position on record, this Court is of the considered view that the working of the Advocate-Receiver apparently does not appear to be fair. If he is continued in the Office, it might harm the interest of the Ashram. Under these circumstances, it will be appropriate to suspend the order of appointment of Advocate-Receiver. It is accordingly ordered that the order of appointment of Advocate-Receiver is hereby suspended.
20. The learned District Judge, Nellore is directed to appoint Ad hoc Committee of three persons as Receivers forthwith those who have got good reputation and credence by way of interim arrangement for managing the properties of Bhagwan Sri Venkayya Swamy Humanitarian Mission, Golagamudi. Sri C. Ramakrishna, Advocate-Receiver of the said Mission, is directed to file all the account books, vouchers etc., into the Court forthwith. The learned District Judge is further directed to get the accounts examined and audited with the help of reputed local Chartered Accountant. After receipt of the report of Chartered Accountant if the District Judge finds that there is misappropriation in the funds of the said Mission at the hands of the Advocate-Receiver, then he may proceed to pass an order regarding the prosecution of Sri C. Ramakrishna, Advocate-Receiver. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order.
21. The District Judge, Nellore, may also consider to continue or to discontinue the Ad hoc Committee appointed by him by way of interim arrangement depending upon the report from the Chartered Accountant or may make any other suitable orders as he thinks fit for management of the said Ashram.
22. The Office is directed to despatch the aforesaid order to the District Judge, Nellore forthwith.
23. With these directions, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No Costs.