Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
L. Lazarus, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 17 September, 2021
Author: Ninala Jayasurya
Bench: Arup Kumar Goswami, Ninala Jayasurya
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT APPEAL Nos. 341 and 355 of 2021
and
I.A.No.3 of 2021 in W.A.No.341 of 2021
&
I.A.No.3 of 2021 in W.A.No.355 of 2021
(Taken up through video conferencing)
L. Lazarus, S/o L. Abraham,
aged about 44 years, R/o. 9-2,
ST colony, Porumamilla,Cuddapah, A.P. .... Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its
Principal Secretary, Home Department,
A.P.Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati
and others .... Respondents
Counsel for the appellant : Mr. Dammalapati Srinivas
(in W.A.Nos.341 and 355 of 2021) Senior Counsel
Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 : Mr. V. Maheswara Reddy
(in W.A.No.341 of 2021) and Government Pleader
counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5
(in W.A.No.355 of 2021)
Counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6 : Mr. C.V. Mohan Reddy
(in W.A.No.341 of 2021) Senior Counsel
Counsel for respondent Nos.6 to 8 : Mr. K.G.Krishna Murthy,
(in W.A.No.355 of 2021) Senior Counsel
Counsel for proposed respondents : Mr. G. Tuhin Kumar
(in W.A.Nos.341 & 355 of 2021)
Date of Hearing : 06.09.2021
Date of Pronouncement : 17.09.2021
2
HCJ & NJS,J
W.A.Nos.341 & 355 of 2021
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Per Ninala Jayasurya, J) These two writ appeals are directed against the interlocutory orders dated 03.06.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.10891 of 2021 and W.P.No.10887 of 2021. W.A.No.341 of 2021 is filed against the order passed in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.10891 of 2021, wherein the appellant is arrayed as respondent No.5. In W.A.No.355 of 2021 filed against the order in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.10887 of 2021, the appellant is arrayed as respondent No.6.
2. During prendency of the appeals, the AELC rep. by its President/Moderator Bishop Rev. Dr. Elia and Ms. M. Mary Grace claiming to be Secretary of the AELC filed applications being I.A.No.3 of 2021 in W.A.No.341 of 2021 and I.A.No.3 of 2021 in W.A.No.355 of 2021 seeking their impleadment as respondent Nos.7 and 8 in W.A.No.341 of 2021 and respondent Nos.9 & 10 in W.A.No.355 of 2021.
3. Heard Mr. Dammalapati Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant in W.A.Nos.341 and 355 of 2021. Also heard Mr. V. Maheswara Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Home, appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 in W.A.No.341 of 2021 and respondent Nos.1 to 5 in W.A.No.355 of 2021, Mr. C. V. Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for respondent Nos.5 and 6/writ petitioners in W.A.No.341 of 2021, and Mr. K. G. Krishna Murthy, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for respondent Nos.6 to 8 / writ petitioners in 3 HCJ & NJS,J W.A.Nos.341 & 355 of 2021 W.A.No.355 of 20201, respectively. Heard Mr. G. Tuhin Kumar, learned counsel, also for the proposed respondents in both the appeals.
4. W.P.No.10887 of 2021 was filed seeking to impugn the action of respondent Nos.2 to 5 therein (official respondents/Police officials) in interfering with the day to day affairs of the Andhra Evangelical Lutheran Church (for short "the AELC") in order to support the unofficial 6th respondent/appellant which amounts to interference with civil disputes as illegal, improper, unjust, without jurisdiction, contrary to law and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The said writ petition was instituted by Dr. K. Fredrick Pardesi Babu and Rev. Kanapala Vijaya Prasanna Kumar claiming to be Moderator Bishop and Vice-President of the AELC, respectively, and by the AELC rep. by its Moderator Bishop/President Dr. K. Fredrick Paradesi Babu.
5. W.P.No.10891 of 2021 was filed to declare the action of respondent Nos.2 to 4 therein (official respondents/Police officials) in aiding the unofficial 5th respondent/appellant in obstructing the newly elected office bearers from entering the AELC and creating law and order problem as illegal, arbitrary, high handed and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and for a consequential direction to respondent Nos.2 to 4 not to interfere with the day to day affairs and activities of the AELC. The writ petition was instituted by the AELC, rep. by its Secretary, Chinnam Kishore Babu and Moses Arnold Kollabathula, claiming to be the Treasurer of the AELC.
4
HCJ & NJS,J W.A.Nos.341 & 355 of 2021
6. The learned Single Judge, after considering the submissions made on behalf of the writ petitioners and hearing the learned Government Pleader for Home representing the official respondents, passed separate orders dated 03.06.2021 in the said writ petitions granting interim directions which are similar. Suffice to reproduce the relevant portion of the said orders in one of the writ petitions viz., W.P.No.10891 of 2021 for the purpose of considering the submissions of the learned counsel, which reads thus:
"It is the case of petitioners that the respondents 2 to 4 are interfering with the day to day affairs of the 1st petitioner society at the instance of the 5th respondent, who has nothing to do with the affairs of the society. Under the guise of law and order problem, the respondents 2 to 4 are preventing the new managing committee of the 1st petitioner society to conduct its day to day business from the 1st petitioner's premises high-handedly, which is illegal and arbitrary. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Home, appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 submits that the respondents 2 to 4 are not interfering with the functioning of the 1st petitioner society and they are maintaining law and order as per the order passed in I.A.No.3 of 2021 in C.R.P.No.35 of 2021, dated 15.01.2021.
Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of the learned counsel and perused the record, this Court prima facie satisfied that the petitioner has shown sufficient cause for grant of interim order. Accordingly, there shall be an interim direction to the respondents 2 to 4 not to interfere with the conduct of day to 5 HCJ & NJS,J W.A.Nos.341 & 355 of 2021 day administration of the 1st petitioner society from its premises by the new managing committee under the guise of maintaining law and order. Further, the respondents are at liberty to register cases against the persons, who are creating law and order problem and take appropriate action against them as per law."
7. Sri Dammalapati Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, inter alia submits that in the interim orders passed by the learned Single Judge, the expression "new" would give an impression that the petitioners are recognized as members of a new Managing Committee. He contends that the learned Single Judge has not recorded any prima facie finding with regard to the entitlement of the writ petitioners for grant of interim orders, with reference to any material on record to the effect that they are newly elected to carry on the affairs of the Society/AELC in question. While stating that the interim orders were passed on the same day and that no opportunity was afforded to the appellant, he would submit that in fact the writ petition itself is not maintainable, inasmuch as disputes with regard to the affairs of the AELC which is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, are required to be agitated before the District Court by initiating appropriate proceedings under Section 23 of the Societies Registration Act.
i) It is his submission that in view of the positive order granted by the learned Single Judge, the appellant is rendered remediless. He submits that had an opportunity been given to the 5th respondent/appellant before 6 HCJ & NJS,J W.A.Nos.341 & 355 of 2021 passing the interim orders, the relevant facts and necessary material would have been placed before the learned Single Judge for proper adjudication of the issues raised in the writ petition. While drawing the attention of this Court to the relevant averments in the writ affidavit, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that the alleged new Managing Committee has not taken charge and further that under the guise of interference into the affairs of the AELC by the official respondents, the writ petitioners are trying to maintain the writ petition which is, otherwise, not maintainable in law.
ii) He also submits that on an earlier occasion, the said Pardesi Babu claiming as Moderator Bishop filed W.P.No.4781 of 2021 on behalf of the AELC alleging that the official respondents/Police officials are not allowing him to discharge functions as Moderator Bishop by locking office premises of the AELC and the learned Single Judge disposed of the said writ petition by order dated 07.05.2021 giving liberty to the petitioner to approach appropriate Court of law for resolution of the disputes.
However, he chose to file W.P.No. 10887 of 2021 instead of invoking the remedy under Section 23 of the Societies Registration Act. Accordingly, he submits that the orders under appeal are liable to be set aside.
8. Opposing the said submissions, Mr. C. V. Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the contesting respondents/writ petitioners in W.P.No.10891 of 2021 submits that the writ petitioners are constrained to approach this Court as the official respondents are interfering with the 7 HCJ & NJS,J W.A.Nos.341 & 355 of 2021 affairs of the AELC at the behest of the appellant. While stating that pursuant to the elections conducted to the AELC, the Managing Committee was elected on 27.05.2021. He points out about the ongoing litigation between the parties to the present proceedings and one Mr. Elia and submits that the appellant is set up by him. He submits that in fact on the earlier occasion the said Mr. Elia filed O.P.No.55 of 2020 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru, and subsequently withdrew the same and thereafter filed another O.P. being S.O.P.No.648 of 2020. It is his submission that the learned Single Judge after satisfying that the petitioners established a prima facie case, granted interim order in their favour and the same warrants no interference.
9. Supporting the said arguments, Mr. K.G. Krishna Murthy, learned Senior Counsel, contends that the elections to the AELC were conducted by duly obtaining permission from the District Collector, Krishna. He submits that as the grievance of the writ petitioners is that the Police officials are interfering with the affairs of the AELC at the behest of the appellant, the writ petition was filed and the same is maintainable. He submits that the learned Single Judge after hearing the matter, found prima facie case in favour of the petitioners and granted interim order. He further submits that the appellant instead of filing counter and getting the order vacated, straight away filed the appeal and the same is not maintainable. He also contends that as the order is against the official respondents and if at all they are aggrieved, they should have filed the appeals. However, no such appeals have been filed by them. He further 8 HCJ & NJS,J W.A.Nos.341 & 355 of 2021 submits that as the District Registrar, Guntur, refused to receive the documents in respect of the newly elected office bearers and members of the Executive Council of the AELC submitted by them, they were constrained to file writ petition being W.P.No.15746 of 2021 and the same is pending.
10. Contending so, both the learned Senior Counsel submit that the writ appeals are liable to be dismissed, as the same are not maintainable against the interim orders.
11. Learned Government Pleader for Home submits that the allegations levelled against the official respondents are not correct and that they are maintaining law and order as per the orders passed by this Court on the earlier occasion and the allegations made against the Officers contra are not true and correct. He also submits that a counter affidavit was filed in the pending writ petitions. It is his submission that under the guise of the orders under appeal, the writ petitioners are intending to take charge of the affairs of the AELC by moving petitions before the Police-authorities.
12. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue submits that the District Collector, Guntur, and District Registrar, Guntur, are not parties to the writ petition, however as called for by this Court, a report of the Sub-Collector, Vijayawada, submitted to the Collector, Krishna, and an affidavit of the District Registrar, Guntur were filed. He submits that in the said report, the manner in which the elections were conducted was found fault with, apart from other discrepancies. 9
HCJ & NJS,J W.A.Nos.341 & 355 of 2021
13. However, the submissions of the learned Government Pleader for Revenue were repelled by the learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioners that copies of the said report were furnished to them as per the directions of this Court, and a reading of the same would disclose that the report is one sided and no notice was given to the petitioners at the time of conducting the enquiry. While stating that detailed objections to the report were filed, it is also contended that statements of some persons were obtained behind the back of the petitioners and therefore, no reliance can be placed on such report. It is the contention of the Learned Senior Counsel that such ex parte report which would have an adverse effect on the rights of the petitioners cannot be allowed to be relied on in the 'lis' between the parties.
14. Though several contentions were advanced on behalf of the respective parties, the issue that is required to be answered is whether the orders under appeal warrant interference by this Court.
15. A close reading of the orders under appeal goes to show that the learned Single Judge after considering the submissions advanced before him and expressing prima facie satisfaction passed the impugned order, looking to the material available before him. Though this Court finds some substance in the contentions raised by the appellant, since the interim order was passed expressing only a prima facie opinion and as it is not a final conclusion, this Court deems it appropriate not to dilate upon the arguments advanced with equal vehemence, by the respective counsel 10 HCJ & NJS,J W.A.Nos.341 & 355 of 2021 for the contesting parties, since this Court is conscious of the fact that the findings recorded, if any, may have an impact on the pleas of the parties concerned before the learned Single Judge. Further, both sides brought on record voluminous material in the appeals which is otherwise required to be examined by the Writ Court, since the writ petitions are pending adjudication before it.
16. Interference in an intra Court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent would be justified only, if the order under appeal suffers from any patent illegality. This Court, under the above mentioned circumstances, is of the opinion that the orders impugned do not suffer from any such infirmity.
17. However, this Court, in the interest of justice, deems it appropriate to dispose of the appeals providing that in the event, the appellant files a petition to vacate the interim order before the learned Single Judge, the same shall be examined on its merits without being influenced by the prima facie view taken at the time of granting the interim order. Liberty is also granted to the appellant to make a request before the concerned Court for expeditious consideration of the stay vacate application.
18. Further, as this Court has not expressed any opinion in the matter with reference to the report submitted by the learned Government Pleader for Revenue or the affidavit of the District Registrar, Guntur, claims of the parties shall be decided on their merits, uninfluenced by the said report 11 HCJ & NJS,J W.A.Nos.341 & 355 of 2021 and the affidavit, as also the observations, if any, made in the present order.
19. In view of the disposal of the writ appeals, in the above terms, this Court deems it appropriate to grant liberty to the proposed respondents in I.A.No.3 of 2021 in W.A.No.341 of 2021 and I.A.No.3 of 2021 in W.A.No.355 of 2021 to move appropriate applications in the writ petitions, if so advised. In the event of any such applications being filed, the learned Single Judge may consider the same and pass appropriate orders.
20. Accordingly, I.A.No.3 of 2021 in W.A.No.341 of 2021 and I.A.No.3 of 2021 in W.A.No.355 of 2021 and both the appeals are disposed of. No order as to costs.
21. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand dismissed.
ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ NINALA JAYASURYA, J
cbs
12
HCJ & NJS,J
W.A.Nos.341 & 355 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT APPEAL Nos.341 & 355 of 2021 and I.A.No.3 of 2021 in W.A.No.341 of 2021 & I.A.No.3 of 2021 in W.A.No.355 of 2021 17th September, 2021 cbs