Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Rev. Geddam David Nelson Babu, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 22 August, 2022

           HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AT AMARAVATI

                    MAIN CASE No.W.P.No.19959 of 2022

                              PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl.     DATE                            ORDER                                        OFFICE
No.                                                                                   NOTE
(7)   22-08-2022   CMR, J.                                                          Trans-
                                                                                    ferred to
                                                                                    I.O.
                         At request of learned Government Pleader for               Folder.


                   Revenue for filing additional counter-affidavit, post the

                   matter, finally, after one week.

                                         I.A.No.1 of 2022

                         Impugned proceedings are passed under Section

                   144 Cr.P.C. The learned Mandal Executive Magistrate,

                   while withdrawing the orders, dated 18.06.2022 passed

                   by him under Section 144 Cr.P.C., made certain

                   observations in the penultimate paragraph of the

                   impugned order deciding the rights of the parties relating

                   to managerial affairs of the Church. The writ petitioner

                   is   aggrieved   by   the   said   observations   which    are

                   incidentally made by the learned Mandal Executive

                   Magistrate in the impugned order. According to the writ

                   petitioner, it is not within the competence of the learned

                   Mandal    Executive    Magistrate     to   make   any     such

                   observations deciding the rights of the parties to

                   managerial affairs of the Church. Therefore, challenging

                   the said observations made in the impugned order, the

                   instant Writ Petition has been filed.

                        After hearing both the learned counsel for the

                   petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue

                   and also learned counsel appearing for the unofficial

                   respondent, this Court finds considerable force in the

                   contention of the writ petitioner.      The learned Mandal

                   Executive Magistrate, while exercising his powers under
                            2


Section 144 Cr.P.C., is not empowered under law to

make any observations even incidentally deciding the

rights of the parties to managerial affairs of the Church.

The     learned        Mandal   Executive      Magistrate     in   the

penultimate paragraph of the impugned order made the

following observations:

        "After careful consideration of the entire material
      papers submitted before me by both           parties, I am
      under the opinion that it is not necessary to continue
      the orders issued by me under Sec.144 Cr.P.C. as Rev.
      E. Rajendra Kumar, who is authorised to conduct the
      Church worship of V T Sanitorium Konthamuru as
      Pastor. I am also informing the Inspector of Police, III
      Town Police Station that necessary protection can be
      given to the Pastor Rev. E. Rajendra Kumar for smooth
      and fair conduct of Church worship.           As Rev. G D
      Nelson Babu has no authority to act as Pastor and he
      has no authority to interfere with smooth conduct of
      Church worship by the Pastor by Rev. E. Rajendra
      Kumar."


      The above observations made by the learned Mandal

Executive       Magistrate      in   the   impugned        order   are,

undoubtedly, beyond his competence under law. He is

not supposed to make any such observations deciding

the rights of the parties relating to managerial affairs of

the Church. In fact, it is within the competence of the

civil Court to decide the rights of the parties in relation

to the affairs pertaining to the management of the

Church.

      Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of the

case,    as     this    Court   prima      facie   found    that   the

observation in the impugned order is unsustainable

under law, there shall be a direction to the respondent

police officials not to act upon the said observations
                      3


which are prima facie found to be illegal and not to take

any action in respect of the managerial affairs of the

Church, till the next date of hearing.



                                               _________
                                                CMR, J.

cs