Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Andhra Evangelical Lutheran Church ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 12 September, 2023
Author: R. Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R. Raghunandan Rao
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
WRIT PETITION Nos.10887 and 10891 of 2021
COMMON ORDER:
Heard Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned counsel appearing for Sri S. Vivek Chandra Sekhar learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.10891 of 2021, Sri K.G. Krishna Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri K. Rama Mohan learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.10887 of 2021, Sri J. Sudheer, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 6 in W.P.No.10887 of 2021, Sri M.R.K. Chakravarthy, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.5 in W.P.No.10891 of 2021, Sri Ravi Sankar Jandhyala, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri A. Rama Koteswara Rao, learned counsel appearing for Implead Petitioners/Respondent Nos. 15 to 18 in I.A.No.6 of 2022 in W.P.No.10887 of 2021, Sri K.Vijay Kumar, learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.8 to 14 in W.P.No.10887 of 2021, Sri G. Thuhin Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6 in W.P.No.10891 of 2021 & Respondent No.7 in W.P.No.10887 of 2021 and the learned Additional Advocate General for the State and Official Respondents.
2
RRR,J W.P.Nos.10887 & 10891/2021
2. As all the above matters are interconnected and between the same parties, they are being disposed of, by way of a common order.
3. M/s. Andhra Evangelical Lutheran Church is a Church, which has been in existence for the past 170 years. To give a legal standing for this Church, a Society was registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 in the year 1932. By virtue of the repealing provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001, it is deemed that this Society is a Society, registered under the Provisions of the 2001 Act and the said Act would be the applicable law.
4. The Andhra Evangelical Lutheran Church, herein after referred as the Society, consists of about 1200 Churches and 300 Congregations, spread over various Districts of the State of Andhra Pradesh. All the aforesaid Churches and Congregations are organised into 6 synods namely Central Guntur synod, East Guntur synod, West Guntur synod, East Godavari synod, West Godavari synod, Visakha synod and the Synods are further divided into several parishes and the parishes are further classified as 'A', 'B', & 'C' according to their strength and financial capacity. The affairs of the Society are run by a Central Body, which consists of elected members and a 3 RRR,J W.P.Nos.10887 & 10891/2021 treasurer who is a nominated member. The method of election is that elections are first conducted for the Synods from which the electors, who would participate in the election to the Central Body, are drawn. The electors, so drawn, elect the Central Body, which would consist of a President, Vice President, General Secretary, and 12 members from the six Synods and 10 other members. It may also be noticed that the Treasurer is not an elected member and is nominated by the Central Body itself. The election to this Central Body is conducted during the annual conventions of the Society. The term of all the office bearers and members of the Central Body, except the President is for a period of two years. There is some controversy as to the term of the President. Some of the parties in these writ petitions contend that the term of the President is four years while some of the other parties contend that the terms of the President is only two years.
5. The last undisputed elections to the Society were conducted in the year 2017. The parties to these Writ Petitions have different versions of what happened after 2017. Before considering these versions, it may be noticed that the parties before this court fall, roughly, into three groups. The first group is headed by Dr. Frederick Paradesi babu, (hereinafter referred to as Dr. Babu). The second group is headed by Dr.CH. Elia. 4
RRR,J W.P.Nos.10887 & 10891/2021 Initially Mr. Lazarus was part of this group. Later, differences appear to have cropped up between Dr.CH. Elia and Mr. Lazarus also. The third Group is headed by Mr. Sam Sampath. All of them contend that they are the rightful and duly elected office bearers of the Society. This categorisation is being made only for the purposes of recording the rival contentions and shall not be treated as a finding of any nature by this court.
6. The respective versions of these three groups are as follows:
1. Dr. Babu contends as follows:
a) Elections were due for the Synods in 2020 and steps were taken for conducting these elections in November, 2020. As the official respondents and some private persons were trying to scuttle these elections the Society approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.2166 of 2020, for a direction to the respondents therein not to interfere with the elections. On 20.11.2020, this Court had given interim directions to conduct the elections and the elections, were held on 23.11.2020.
After the conduct of these elections, W.P.No.21776 of 2020 was closed as infructuous.
5
RRR,J W.P.Nos.10887 & 10891/2021
b) One Pastor, Dr.Ch. Elia filed O.S.No.55 of 2020 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru against Dr. Babu and obtained ad interim injunction against Dr. Babu in I.A.No.221 of 2020. The said Order of interim injunction was challenged in C.R.P.No.35 of 2021 filed in this Court and in I.A.No.1 of 2021 of the said C.R.P., this court suspended the ad interim injunction order on 15.01.2021 and passed another order in I.A.No.3 of 2021 in the same C.R.P. directing Police not to allow Dr.Ch. Elia and others into the Society's office.
c) As the Police authorities started to favour the other parties, W.P.No.4781 of 2021 was filed contending that there was interference by the police authorities in the management of the affairs of the Society and that the police authorities were acting in a highly biased manner in favour of respondent No.6 in W.P.No.10887 of 2021 and others supporting him. This writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 07.05.2021 holding that the issues raised in the writ petition, as to who was in management of the society would best be answered by approaching the District Court and these questions cannot be answered by this Court.
6
RRR,J W.P.Nos.10887 & 10891/2021
d) As the term of the President, Vice President and General Secretary were expiring in May, 2021, an election schedule was issued on 04.01.2021, for conduct of election to the office bearers of the Central Body. Thereupon, a representation was given to the District Collector, Krishna for conduct of elections on 21.05.2021 and the District Collector, Krishna granted permission for conduct of elections on the same day i.e., on 21.05.2021. The elections were held and results were also declared showing that Dr. Babu was re- elected as President, Sri Vijay Prasanna Babu was elected as Vice President. Sri Chinnam Kishore Babu was elected as General Secretary.
e) After the conduct of elections, the officer bearers went to the Central Office of the Society where they were obstructed by the police, from entering the office of the Society. This obstruction by the police officials was at the instance of the by one Sri Lazarus, who is arrayed as respondent No.6 in W.P.No.10887 of 2021 and Respondent No.5 in W.P.No.10891 of 2021. These office bearers had then given a representation dated 30.05.2021, to the District Registrar as well as respondent No.3 in W.P.No.10887 of 2021 seeking the 7 RRR,J W.P.Nos.10887 & 10891/2021 intervention of these persons. Thereupon, W.P.No.10887 of 2021 came to be filed by the Society represented by Dr. K. Fredrick Paradesi Babu and Mr. K. Vijaya Prasanna Kumar who claimed to be the President/Moderator Bishop and Vice-President of the Society respectively. Similarly, W.P.No.10891 of 2021 came to be filed by the Society represented by Mr. Chinnam Kishore Babu along with Mr. Moses Arnold Kollabathula who claimed to be the Secretary and Treasurer in the Society.
f) The relief sought in both the writ petitions is essentially the same. In both writ petitions, the petitioners sought a direction to the police authorities not to interfere in the management of the affairs of the society.
g) Both these writ petitions came up before this Court on 03.06.2021. After hearing counsel, this Court had granted interim directions to the police authorities not to interfere with the conduct of day to day administration of the society, from its premises, by the new managing committee, with further liberty given to the respondents to register a case against persons who 8 RRR,J W.P.Nos.10887 & 10891/2021 create any law and order problem and to take appropriate action against them as per law.
h) After this order, memos were filed, on 29.10.2021, in both the writ petitions, before the Court, in the name of the learned counsel for the petitioners along with affidavits said to have been signed by the 1st petitioners, stating that the matter was settled amicably and for permission to withdraw the writ petitions. When this Court took up the said memos and affidavits, learned counsels for the petitioners stated that no such memo was filed by the petitioners or by the learned counsel for the petitioners, in either writ petition, and the same appear to have been forged. This Court, after considering these statements had passed an order on 30.06.2022, regarding of the above facts with further directions to the 1st petitioner to appear before the Registrar Judicial to record his statement regarding the false allegations made therein. The Registrar Judicial was also required to lodge a report with the police through an officer not below the rank of Joint Registrar of High Court for registration of a case and investigation into the same to ascertain who the culprits were. On that basis, complaints were in both 9 RRR,J W.P.Nos.10887 & 10891/2021 the writ petitions and the same were registered as Crime No.156 of 2022 and Crime No.157 of 2022 on the file of Tulluru Police Station and the same are pending investigation.
i) As the orders of the Court dated 03.06.2021 were not being followed and Sri Lazarus and his followers, with the active cooperation of the police authorities, were not allowing the writ petitioners to run the organisation from the Central Office, C.C.No.1012 of 2021 was filed.
j) A learned single Judge of this Court, in C.C.No.1012 of 2021, after due notice to all the parties, passed an order on 28.03.2022. In this order, respondents 1 to 3 in the contempt case, namely The Superintendent of Police (Urban), Guntur, The Deputy Superintendent of Police (West), Guntur, The Station House Officer, Arundalpet P.S., Guntur were directed to provide police aid to the petitioners to function from the office premises and to carryout day to day administration of 1st petitioner society from the office premises with liberty being given to the respondent authorities to take appropriate action against Sri Lazarus (respondent No.4) if he is creating law and order problem in the 10 RRR,J W.P.Nos.10887 & 10891/2021 office premises. Further, a practising advocate of this Court was appointed as Advocate Commissioner to oversee the day-to-day administrative activities of the petitioner society in the Church premises and the disturbances created by Sri Lazarus along with his henchmen in the Church premises and to submit report to this Court on day to day basis.
k) The Advocate Commissioner received his warrant on 29.03.2022 and sought to execute the warrant. However, he was obstructed by a mob armed with dangerous weapons and the gates of the Church/Office of the Society were locked and the Advocate Commissioner was not allowed to go into the premises despite the police officers accompanying the Advocate Commissioner requesting the persons inside the office premises to open the gates and allow the Advocate Commissioner to execute his warrant.
l) The Advocate Commissioner had again visited the premises on 30.03.2022 and with the help of the police personnel was able to evict all the persons who were in unauthorised occupation of the Church and residential premises situated within the campus of the office of the 11 RRR,J W.P.Nos.10887 & 10891/2021 society. Thereafter, the Advocate Commissioner has been submitting reports regarding the functioning of the society, from time to time, to the Court.
7. Sri K.G. Krishna Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.10887 of 2021 took the Court through various documents to contend that Sri Lazarus has a criminal history as seen from the complaints registered against Sri Lazarus in the State of Karnataka and the rowdy sheet that is said to have been opened against Sri Lazarus in Karnataka. Sri K.G. Krishna Murthy had also brought to the notice of this Court, the report of the learned Advocate Commissioner appointed by this Court about the manner in which the learned Advocate Commissioner had been obstructed in executing his warrant and the various weapons and other deadly instruments which were found stored in the office of the society. Sri K.G. Krishna Murthy contend that all these weapons and deadly instructions were stored by the followers of Sri Lazarus and that he had also been involved along with Dr.Ch. Elia in inciting same persons to attack the treasurer of the society with a view to kill him. However, the treasurer was following in surviving the attack and Crime No.590 of 2021 was registered in this regard in Nagarapalem Police Station as Crime No.590 of 2021. He would point out that no investigation, worth the name, has been 12 RRR,J W.P.Nos.10887 & 10891/2021 conducted in this case despite the fact that the case had been registered under Section 307 of I.P.C and the delay/negligence of the Investigating Officer is only on account of the undue influence wielded by Sri Lazarus, had got the entire investigation stopped. He would point out that no steps of any nature were taken to arrest Sri Lazarus, which action goes to show the bias and favour being shown by the police in favour of Sri Lazarus. He would point out that an L.P.A had been filed against the order of Court dated 28.03.2022 in C.C.No.1012 of 2022 and the same had been closed without modifying or changing the order of the learned Single Judge dated 28.03.2022.
8. Sri K.G. Krishna Murthy would submit that the material placed by the petitioners, in W.P.No.10887 of 2021, is sufficient to demonstrate that the petitioners have been elected as the office bearers of the society and the manner in which the police authorities have acted to shield Sri Lazarus is sufficient to demonstrate that the petitioners would not be able to discharge their lawful functions as the office bearers of the society unless this Court intervenes and ensures that the police authorities do not interfere in the affairs of the society with a view to supplant the petitioners with Sri Lazarus and other persons. 13
RRR,J W.P.Nos.10887 & 10891/2021
9. Sri K.G. Krishna Murthy would also submit that the pleadings relating to the subsequent events showing the manner in which the 6th respondent as well as Dr.Ch. Elia and Sam Sampath are behaving so as to mould the relief in the writ petition and to protect the society as well as the petitioners. He would rely upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pasupuleti Venkateswaralu vs. Motor and General Traders1 for this purpose.
10. Sri K.G. Krishna Murthy would also point out that Dr.Ch. Elia claiming that he is the President of the Society and has filed S.O.P.No.107 of 2021 that he is the President of AELC, Sri Sam Sampath filed S.O.P.No.245 of 2022 before the Principal District Judge, Guntur for an injunction simplicitor against both Dr. Babu and Dr.Ch. Elia, some of the Pastors working in the society had also approached the Principal District Judge, Guntur by way of O.P.No.112 of 2022. He contends that apart from this, there are also O.P No.513 of 2021 before the III Additional District Judge, Guntur, S.O.P.No.15 of 2022 before the III Additional District Judge, Guntur and S.O.P.No.647 of 2021 before the II Additional District Judge, Guntur essentially contending that Dr. Babu and Dr.Ch. Elia are to be declared as 1 (1975) 1 SCC 770 14 RRR,J W.P.Nos.10887 & 10891/2021 persons who are not eligible to contest the elections and also that their elections themselves were illegal and would have to be set aside. He submits that these O.Ps have been filed only for the purpose of creating a controversy where none exist and for the purpose of bringing down a lawful and properly elected office bearers of the society.
11. Sri C.V Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.10891 of 2021 contends that Dr. Babu and his committee members are the duly elected office bearers of the society and any step to be taken against them would have to be in the Civil Court under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 2001. In the present case, various petitions have been filed. However, no orders of any nature have been passed against Dr. Babu or his office bearers till today. He would contend that the directions of this Court in W.P.No.4781 of 2021 dated 07.05.2021 requires all the parties to the present set of disputes to approach the Civil Courts for relief. In the absence of any relief being given by the Civil Court, it would not be appropriate for these parties to interfere with the functioning of the society. He would further submit that after Dr. Babu term was expired in May, 20221 has now been extended by further period of four years till May, 2025. He would also submit that elections of 2021 have not been challenged anywhere and 15 RRR,J W.P.Nos.10887 & 10891/2021 consequently known of the parties, can forcibly remove Dr. Babu from the post of President of Society or stop Dr. Babu from functioning as the Present of the Society.
12. Version of Dr.Ch. Elia:
The elections for the synods were conducted in 2020. However, the persons elected into the synods, in these elections, were not favourable to Dr. Babu due to which he sought to oppose the election and threaten the synods Presidents and other office bearers to fall in line with him. Due to this undue pressure and threats, Presidents of four synods, had filed suits and obtained interim injunction against Dr. Babu.
13. In two meetings conducted on 16.08.2020 and 31.08.2020 the attitude and activities of Dr. Babu were discussed and a six man committee was constituted for conducting an enquiry in this regard and notices were issued to Dr. Babu to attend a committee meeting on 08.09.2020 for this purpose. However, Dr. Babu refused to attend the said meeting. In view of the non cooperation of Dr. Babu in the enquiry, orders were passed removing Dr. Babu from the office he was holding and a special convention was passed on 20/21st November, 2020 wherein Dr.Ch. Elia was elected as President of the Society.
16
RRR,J W.P.Nos.10887 & 10891/2021
14. Since Dr. Babu was interfering in the affairs of the Society even after his removal, Dr.Ch. Elia had filed O.S.No.55 of 2020 in Eluru, as the new President of the Society, against Dr. Babu. However, this suit was subsequently withdrawn.
15. It is Dr.Ch. Elia, who was in full control of the office and he had locked the AELU office to ensure that Dr. Babu does not enter into the office and create further complications in the working of the society. Sri G. Thuhin Kumar, learned counsel appearing for Dr.Ch. Elia would submit that the duly elected President of the Society is Dr.Ch.Elia in view of the developments mentioned above and permit Dr. Babu to continue as the President of the Society would jeopardise the interest of the Society as Dr.Babu and his family members have been committing various misdemeanours relating to the affairs of the Society and the properties of the Society
16. Dr. Babu and the persons supporting him do not have any role in the society, as they are not properly elected office bearers of the society. Dr.Ch. Elia, who is presently the President of the society, would be the person who should be running the Society. Dr. Babu to ensure that he continues to remain in power has approached this Court, with false averments, in order to take over the running of the Society. 17
RRR,J W.P.Nos.10887 & 10891/2021
17. Sri Lazarus represented by the learned counsel Sri J. Sudheer would contend that the continuation of Dr. Babu as the President of the Society is impermissible. He would further submit that Dr. Babu, under the guise of the present writ petitions, is continuing to remain at the helm of affairs of the society though he has not been lawfully elected as the President of the Society. He would further submit that Dr. Babu has been indulging in various misdemeanours and is alienating the property of the Society for his own benefit and the benefit of his family members. He would submit that in such circumstances, it would be appropriate to allow the law take its course rather than keep these matters pending before this Court.
18. Sri Lazarus, while basically accepting the line of facts set out by Dr.Ch. Elia, would contend that Dr.Ch. Elia cannot also be permitted to continue as President of the Society in view of the provisions of Section 14 of the Andhra Pradesh Registration Act read with the bylaws of the Society.
19. Sri M.R.K. Chakravarthy, learned counsel appearing for Sri Lazarus in W.P.No.10891 of 2021 contends as follows:
a) It is the contention of Dr. Babu that he had been elected in the year 2013, 2017 and 2021. This is not permissible as the bylaws of the Society stipulates that 18 RRR,J W.P.Nos.10887 & 10891/2021 persons above 61 years are not entitled to contest for a second time and Dr. Babu has crossed the age of 61 years long back. He would further contend that Section 14 of the Societies Registration Act read in conjunction with the bylaws makes this aspect even more clear. The initial term of the President, under the bylaws, as available with the Registrar of Societies, provides for a term of two years for the President. It is contended that there was an amendment to the bylaws in accordance with the term of President from two years to four years.
However, such an amendment has not been registered with the Registrar of Societies and consequently the said amendment does not come into force in view of Section 8(4) of the Societies Registration Act. Accordingly, the term of Dr. Babu ended in 2019 and the contention that he is was entitled to a term of 4 years from 2017 is itself, incorrect and it would have to be declared that he is not the elected president of the Society.
b) The elections, which are said to have been conducted in May, 2021, were never conducted. He would contend that the fact that there is no election schedule given for this election and none of the other requirements of the 19 RRR,J W.P.Nos.10887 & 10891/2021 election have been set out can only lead to the conclusion that no election had been conducted in May 2021 and the entire exercise is a farce created by Dr. Babu for maintaining his hold over the Society.
c) W.P.No.10891 of 2021 and W.P.No.10887 of 2021 were both filed on the same day, for the same relief, by the same party, namely the Society, which is shown as the 1st petitioner in both writ petitions. Though the Society is shown to be represented by the President in one writ petition and the General Secretary in the second writ petition, the fact remains that it is the same organisation and as such, the filing of two writ petitions on the same day is clearly an abuse of the process of the Court. The petitioners in these two writ petitions were out of possession of the office of the Society and were, in fact, not in management of the Society when the writs came to be filed. This it is only by virtue of the orders of this Court, dated 28.03.2023, in C.C.No.1012 of 2021, that the petitioners came into possession of the office of the Society. The report of the Advocate Commissioner, as to the events that had taken place on 30.03.2022, clearly shows that the Advocate Commissioner, with the assistance of the police 20 RRR,J W.P.Nos.10887 & 10891/2021 officials, had evicted persons who were already in possession of the office of the society and Sri Sam Sampath, who was residing in the house of the President/Bishop. This would clearly point to the fact that the petitioners were not in possession of the office of the Society and were not running the affairs of the Society.
20. Sri M.R.K. Chakravarthy would contend that the orders of the Court and the actions of the Advocate Commissioner are also hit by a further fact. He would submit that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had been seized of the matter in S.L.P. (CIVIL) Diary No. 8796 of 2022, filed against the earlier orders of the learned single Judge dated 17.02.2022 in C.C.No.1012 of 2021. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, by an order dated 29.02.2022, had held that further hearing in the contempt case should be deferred till the vacate petition filed to vacate the orders of this Court dated 03.06.2021 was heard. He would contend that the consequence is that all proceedings in the contempt case should have remained stayed and the Advocate Commissioner could not have taken further action after 29.03.2021.
21
RRR,J W.P.Nos.10887 & 10891/2021
21. Sri Vijay Kumar, appearing for respondents 8 to 14, in W.P.No.10887 of 2021 would contend that these respondents are pastors working in various synods of the Society. They contend that both Dr. Babu and Dr.Ch. Elia are ineligible to hold the office of President as both of them have passed the age of 61 years. They would contend that O.P.No.112 of 2022 has already been filed before the II Additional District Judge, Guntur seeking clarity in the matter and for a declaration that no elections were held in November, 2020 and May, 2021and that all the persons claiming to be the office bearers of the Society including Sri Lazarus, Dr. Babu and Dr.Ch. Elia should be declared as persons who are not the office bearers of the Society.
22. Sri Ravi Sankar Jandhyala, learned counsel appearing for Sri A. Rama Koteswara Rao learned counsel for respondents 15 to 18 in W.P.No.10887 of 2021 contends that these respondents are the elected office bearers of the Society. It is his contention that Sri Sam Sampath who is now impleaded as respondent No.15 is the President of the Society and the other three implead respondents are the General Secretary, Vice President and Council Member respectively of the Society.
23. Sri Ravi Sankar Jandhyala, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that while the writ petition has been filed 22 RRR,J W.P.Nos.10887 & 10891/2021 initially for the relief of injuncting the police authorities from interfering with the activities of the Society, the same has now increased in scope on account of the various pleadings and material placed before this Court. He would submit that the petitioners have now given up the original relief sought in the petition and are now seeking the interference of this Court in the functioning of the Society and for a declaration vindicating their claim of being the office bearers of the Society. He would submit that such a course of action is impermissible as the Court cannot grant a relief for which no prayer has been made and for which there is no pleading. He would further submit that a private law remedy cannot be converted into public law remedy. He would drawn the attention of this Court to the various litigations pending before the District Court in Guntur where no relief has been obtained by any party and contends that this Court, acting under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot grant a relief which the civil Court has not granted. He relies upon the following judgments for his contention that this Court cannot grant a relief, which has not been sought. Bharat Amratlal Kothari and Another vs. Dosukhan Samadkhan Sindhi and Ors2., P.R. Murlidharan and Ors. Vs. Swami Dharmananda 2 (2010) 1 SCC 234 (Paragraphs 30 & 31) 23 RRR,J W.P.Nos.10887 & 10891/2021 Theertha Padar and Ors3., Trojan and Company vs.RM. N.N. Nagappa Chettiar4., and Bachhaj Nahar vs. Nilima Mandal and Another5.
24. Consideration of the Court:
The above submissions made by various parties reveal the deep divisions between the members of the Society and the disputes relating to the management of the Society. These disputes can only be resolved after a proper trial in the matter by a competent Court of civil jurisdiction. In the present case, this would mean the Court, specified under Section 23 of the A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001. This Court may also record the fact that various petitions have already been filed before the District Court, Guntur. The details of these cases are as follows:
O.P.No. Name of the Name of the The Court before Petitioner Respondents which the petition is pending SOP No. Mr. Sam Sampath & Mr. K. F. Paradesi III ADJ, Guntur 245/2022 another Babu and 3 others SOP No. Mr. D. Solmon Raj Ch. Elia & 5 II ADJ, Guntur 112/2022 & 4 others others SOP No. Mr. T. Santha Rao Mr. K.F.Paradesi III ADJ, Guntur 513/2021 Babu and another SOP No. Mr. K. Babu Mr. K.F.Paradesi III ADJ, Guntur 15/2022 Prakash Babu and another 3 (2008) 4 SCC 501 (Paragraphs 11, 12 & 18) 4 (1953)1 SCC 456 (Paragraph 38) 5 (2008) 17 SCC 491 (paragraphs 10,11,13 & 17) 24 RRR,J W.P.Nos.10887 & 10891/2021 SOP No. Ch. Elia Mr. K.F. Paradesi II ADJ, Guntur 647/2021 Babu & 2 others SOP No. Ch. Elia and 6 Mr. K.F. Paradesi II ADJ, Guntur 107/2021 others Babu and another
25. These disputes would have to be resolved by way of disposal of the above petitions and/or by way of any other petitions, that may be filed before the District Court, Guntur. This Court had already held on similar lines, by its order, dated 07.05.2021, in W.P.No.4781 of 2021. The attention of this Court is also drawn to another order of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 11.05.2023 in I.A.No.3 of 2023 in W.P.No.7592 of 2023. In this case, a writ was sought for declaring the action of respondents 1 to 3 therein in not allowing the petitioners therein to operate bank account of A.C College of law, which is one of the colleges being run by the Society. The learned Single Judge, by way of an order dated 11.05.2023 had dismissed the writ petition leaving it open to the parties therein to get the issue settled under the petitions filed under Section 23 of the A.P Societies Registration Act, 2001.
26. In the circumstances, this Court declines to go into the question of deciding the identity of the lawfully elected office bearers of the Society and leaves it open to the parties in these cases to agitate their respective grievances before the appropriate forum.
25
RRR,J W.P.Nos.10887 & 10891/2021
27. In the normal course, this Court, following the above observations, would have dismissed the writ petitions with liberty to the parties to avail of their remedies. Learned Senior Counsel and the learned counsel who were appearing for various parties to this litigation have contended that this Court should not interfere in the functioning of the society as any such interference would be beyond the relief sought in the writ petitions. However, there are certain other factors that this Court would have to consider before parting with these cases.
28. a) The report of the Advocate Commissioner in relation to the incidents on 30.03.2022 clearly reveals the presence of weapons, deadly or otherwise, in the office of the society (which is a church).
b) The attack on one of the persons claiming to be the treasurer of the society, which is being investigated in Crime No.590 of 2021 of Nagarampalem Police Station and the investigation of Crime No.114 of 2022, registered with Arundalpet Police Station, clearly reveal that the contesting parties, have suffered physical violence and there is every possibility of further physical violence in the event of the police personnel being withdrawn from the premises of the office of the society.
26
RRR,J W.P.Nos.10887 & 10891/2021
c) The manner in which a mob obstructed the Advocate Commissioner, appointed by this Court, from executing the warrant given to him, would also show that there is every possibility of some of the parties to the litigation taking the law into their own hands and trying to impose their will on the affairs of the society.
d) This Court, had summoned the case diaries of Crime Nos. 590 of 2021 of Nagarapalem Police station, Crime No.114 of Arundelpet Police Station and Crime Nos.156 and 157 of 2022 of Thulluru Police Station. The manner in which the investigation has been conducted in these cases leaves a lot to be desired. This Court had passed an order on 30.06.2022, directing the Registrar Judicial to lodge a report with the police, through an officer not below the rank of Joint Registrar of this Court, for registering a case and for investigating into the complaint that certain documents filed in both the writ petitions for withdrawing these writ petitions were filed by forging the signatures of the parties and the counsel of those parties. Consequently, reports were lodged with the Thulluru Police Station and the same were registered as Crime Nos.156 and 157 of 2022. Thereafter, the investigating officer recorded some statements and no further investigation of any nature was conducted after 22.08.2022. The investigating officer has placed 27 RRR,J W.P.Nos.10887 & 10891/2021 similar letters, dated 01.07.2022, in both the cases, in the CD files, showing that letters had been addressed to the Registry of this Court to produce the specimen signatures of the parties to the writ petition and the counsel of those parties for sending the same to the forensic science laboratory. Further, reminders dated 22.08.2022, in both the cases, are also found in the case diary. Upon enquiry, the Registry has informed this Court that no such letters were received by this Court. It appears that the investigating officer, for the reasons known to him, has decided to abandon the investigation.
e) Even if the said letters are taken to have been sent to the Registry of this Court, it would be a very curious case of the investigating officer directing the Registry of this Court to produce the specimen signatures of the persons whose signatures are said to have been forged. That is the job of the investigating officer. It is not clear as to how the Registry of this Court can be called upon to do the job of the investigating officer. The manner in which the investigation into the reports filed by this Court is being conducted, raises any amount of suspicion as to the interference from powerful quarters. There is no other explanation possible for an investigating officer to so callously abandon investigation into the complaints initiated by the High Court of the State.
28
RRR,J W.P.Nos.10887 & 10891/2021
f) This unfortunate situation is a reflection of the fact that forces powerful enough, to stop an investigation initiated by the High court of the State, are involved in attempting to control the affairs of the society. Any closure of the writ petitions, without an interim arrangement, would amount to an abdication of responsibility by this court.
28. The Society, while registered under the A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001 is actually a Church catering to the spiritual and religious needs to lakhs of followers. While the petitioners have approached this Court invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the fact remains that the institution in question is a religious institution over whom this Court exercises parens patriae jurisdiction.
29. Dismissing the writ petitions without making necessary arrangements for running of the affairs of the Society would leave a dangerous void which could lead to physical violence and worse. There is a duty cast on this Court, under it is parens patriae jurisdiction, to ensure that religious bodies such as the Society herein are protected by this Court.
30. The present management of the society is being conducted by a set of persons supervised by an Advocate 29 RRR,J W.P.Nos.10887 & 10891/2021 Commissioner appointed by this Court in C.C.No.1012 of 2022. All the other parties to the present litigation, contend that these persons were not in the management of the society and have now taken over the management of the society on the basis of the orders of this Court. In that situation, the choice before this Court is whether the present set of people running the society should be continued or whether an alternative arrangement should be made.
31. The question of whether these persons were in management of the society even before the orders of this Court dated 28.06.2022 in C.C.No.1012 of 2022, cannot be decided by this court. However, the fact of the matter is that the affairs of the society are being managed without too many further incidents of violence or disruption of the functioning of the society and the institutions being run by it. The appointment of any new persons, to run the society would require an exercise of discretion by this Court and there is every possibility of the appointment of a new set of persons resulting in disruption of the working of the society.
32. In the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the present set of persons may be continued for the time being. The continuation of the present set of persons in 30 RRR,J W.P.Nos.10887 & 10891/2021 management of shall not be taken to mean that this Court endorses their position as persons in management of the society by any means. This Court is also alive to the allegations being made against the persons in management that they have been diverting the assets of the society for their own personal benefit. Though this Court is not going into the veracity of such allegations, it would be the bounden duty of this Court to ensure that the persons in management do not misuse their position pending a resolution of all the said disputes.
36. The reliefs sought in both the writ petitions is that the police authorities should not interfere in the functioning of the society and the management of the society by the petitioners in the writ petitions. The purport of this relief, claimed in the writ petitions, is that the functions of the society should be insulated against any outside interference. Viewed from this angle, it would mean that this Court would have to ensure the peaceful functioning and management of the society and its institutions.
37. For all the aforesaid reasons, these writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions. 31
RRR,J W.P.Nos.10887 & 10891/2021
1. The present management of the society shall continue along with the Advocate Commissioner appointed to oversee the functioning the affairs of the society.
2. The learned Advocate Commissioner shall file monthly reports, before the district court, in S.O.P.No.245 of 2022 and S.O.P.No.112 of 2022 till their disposal.
3. The police authorities shall extend all co operation to the present management, in ensuring that there is no interference, by any member or outsider of the society, in the running of the society.
4. If the petitions are not disposed of before the expiry of the term claimed by Dr. Paradesi Babu, it would be open to any of the parties to those petitions, to move the Court for making alternative arrangements about the management of the society including the appointment of one or more persons to manage the affairs of the society till the disposal of the petitions, before the District Court or for conducting fresh elections to the society.
5. The persons, who are presently in management of the society, shall only look after the day-to-day affairs of the society and shall not take any policy decisions in relation to the affairs of the society or the colleges being run by the society. In the 32 RRR,J W.P.Nos.10887 & 10891/2021 event of any such requirement, they may approach the district court hearing the petitions.
6. No property of the society shall be alienated for any reasons whatsoever, pending disposal of the petitions mentioned in the table set out above.
7. The C.D. file of Crime Nos.156 and 157 of 2022, of Thulluru police station, shall be placed before the Superintendent of Police, Guntur District for taking necessary action in these two cases. This direction is being given as an opportunity to the Guntur District Police to redeem themselves. In the event of no further investigation being carried out, it would always be open to the parties to this litigation to approach the concerned Magistrate under the relevant provisions. This remedy would also be available to the persons whose signatures are said to have been forged.
8. All these directions, except the direction relating to the investigation in Crime Nos.156 and 157 of 2022, shall be in force till the disposal of the S.O.Ps set out in the table above or in the event of any interim orders being passed by the district court in any petition filed before the district court. For this purpose, liberty is available to the parties to approach the district court for any interim relief and it would be open to the district court to pass any orders necessary for such 33 RRR,J W.P.Nos.10887 & 10891/2021 purpose, including the question of interim management of the society, without being bound by any of the directions of this court.
9. The District Courts at Guntur are to consider and dispose of the said SOPs, or interim applications, without being influenced, in any manner, by any of the observations in the present order. Further, they are not bound by any of the observations in this order.
There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J 12th September, 2023 RJS / JS 34 RRR,J W.P.Nos.10887 & 10891/2021 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.10887 and 10891 of 2021 12th September, 2023 RJS / JS