Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Executive Committee Aelc vs Executive Council Aelc on 6 March, 2020
Author: M. Venkata Ramana
Bench: M. Venkata Ramana
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. VENKATA RAMANA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 2838, 2741 of 2019
COMMON ORDER:
Both these revision petitions are preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. CRP No. 2838 of 2019 is preferred against the orders in I.A.No.460 of 2018 dated 29.07.2019 and CRP No. 2741 of 2019 is against the orders dated 12.06.2019 in I.A.No.321 of 2018 in SOP No.438 of 2018 of the Court of the learned II Additional District Judge, Guntur.
2. The petitioners in I.A.No.460 of 2018 are the petitioners in CRP No.2838 of 2019. Both of them are the petitioners in SOP No.438 of 2018. The 1st petitioner in CRP No.2838 of 2019 is the petitioner in CRP No.2741 of 2019.
3. The respondents in both the CRPs are the respondents in I.A.No.460 of 2018, in I.A.No.321 of 2018 and also in SOP No.438 of 2018.
4. The parties as described in CRP No.2838 of 2019 shall be referred to hereunder for convenience.
5. SOP No.438 of 2018 is filed for the following reliefs.
"A. To declare that the issuance of the Transfer Orders/ Appointments and Annual Convention Notice by 1st respondent to the Pastors of East Guntur Synod, Central Guntur Synod and West Godavari Synod AELC as such and void in the eye of law and by-laws of the AELC. Consequential to grant permanent injunction restraining the respondents, their men, bodies, associates, councils and committees from in any way interfering with the Administrations and Annual Conventions of The East Guntur Synod and The West Godavari Synod of AELC, headed by the petitioners as Presidents. B. The respondents are not entitled to have administrative powers of East Guntur Synod and West Godavari Synod by conducting Conventions and Transfers/ Appointments of Pastors or by taking any other administrative steps with regard to the Synods Administrations once the elected Committees are there in force."
MVR,J CRP Nos.2838,2741 of 2019 2
6. The dispute is essentially in respect of certain affair of Andhra Evangelical Lutheran Church and its constituents/subsidiaries.
7. The petitioners instituted the petition alleging interference by the respondents in the affairs of the Synods of which they claim that they were duly elected Presidents in a properly constituted 78th annual convention of Synods on 13 & 14 April, 2015 for a period of five years commencing from 01.06.2015 to 31.05.2020. These petitioners claim that they were so elected as the Presidents of East Guntur Synod and West Godavari Synod respectively and that they have been discharging their duties and functions as such without any interruption or interference from any quarter.
8. The church and its constituents like Synods etc., are governed by a Memorandum of Association/Rules of Association (Constitution), Bylaws as well as separate Bylaws for synods and Parishes. It is not in dispute that all the parties who owe allegiance to this church are bound by these provisions including discipline.
9. However, it is the contention of the petitioners that there is no provision in the constitution and bylaws of the Church that the convention of Synods, which is conducted in terms of Article-7, Section-5 of bylaws, require approval of the same, from its Executive Council. The 1st respondent is represented by its President and Moderator Bishop whereas the second respondent represents the Nominations and Credential Committee of this Church. Their status in relation to this Church as such, is not in dispute.
10. The petitioners are contending that the respondents, taking advantage of their position, are interfering with the discharging of their MVR,J CRP Nos.2838,2741 of 2019 3 duties in Synods and other functions including in transfers and appointments of Pastors to various Parishes in the Synods. They further alleged that since the panel supported by the respondents did not succeed in the elections of their synods for various factors, the respondents entertained a grudge and began to search out ways and means to get the petitioners removed from their posts and tried to intervene in the transfers of Pastors and Conventions of Synods issuing proceedings and notices. They also got the suits filed including AOP No. 387 of 2015 and SOP No.458 of 2016 on the file of the District Court, Guntur by the individuals, who were defeated in the synod conventions, and others. Therefore, in order to stop their alleged illegal activities in the affairs of these Synods, pending disposal of the main O.P., the petitioners requested to grant temporary injunction restraining them from in any way disturbing, interfering with the administration of appointments and transfer of Pastors in respect of their respective Synods.
11. Resisting this application in the trial Court, on behalf of the 1st respondent, a detailed counter was filed denying such allegations. However, they did not deny the election of the petitioners as presidents of respective Synods. But, the respondents contended that no report was sent by the Synods about 80th annual convention in breach of their duty and obligation, in order to scrutinize the names of the persons elected or appointed by the Synods to the Executive Council, particularly for the purpose of 48th biennial convention of the Church. It was also necessary according to them that these Synods should produce certificates of good standing in respect of the elected and appointed persons in view of Article 7(c) of the bylaws. They further alleged that the 1st petitioner is guilty of many malpractices and misappropriation of funds including contributions MVR,J CRP Nos.2838,2741 of 2019 4 to the Church, which he did not account for in spite of notices, when called for explanation. They further alleged that the 2nd petitioner violated the provisions of the Constitution in several respects, who organized festivals collecting huge money through the Pastors and did not account for the same. Denying that the Synods have any role in appointment and transfers of Pastors and attributing that the petitioners are guilty of gross violation of the Constitution, they further stated that in order to cover up their misdeeds and exposure to any action, they filed the petition.
12. In the trial Court, during enquiry on behalf of the petitioners, Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 and on behalf of the respondents, Ex.B1 to Ex.B12, were marked.
13. Considering the material so placed, the pleadings as well as the contentions of the parties, the trial Court dismissed the petition for temporary injunction.
14. The 1st petitioner had withdrawn himself from prosecuting the matter. The trial Court also took into consideration withdrawal of the 1st petitioner from pursuing the matter, obtaining orders in I.A.No.35 of 2019 dated 28.01.2019. So observing in respect of the 1st petitioner and also considering the effect of the documents produced by the parties, that the 2nd petitioner was suspended from the present position and finding that the petitioners did not have any prima facie case or balance of convenience, the learned trial Judge ultimately dismissed the petition.
15. It is against this order, CRP No. 2838 of 2019 is preferred.
16. After so withdrawing from prosecuting the matter, the 1st petitioner filed I.A.No.321 of 2018 under Section 151 CPC to permit to come on record in S.O.P.No.438 of 2008 attributing that his earlier MVR,J CRP Nos.2838,2741 of 2019 5 Advocate in the trial Court colluded with the then learned counsel appearing for the respondents and thus since he was misled, he sought his withdrawal from the matter and that thereafter after realising, he intended to come on record. After hearing the parties, learned trial Judge, observing that he voluntarily withdrew from prosecuting the matter, having regard to the orders in I.A.No.35 of 2019, dismissed his application for such purpose.
17. Against it, CRP No.2741 of 2019 is preferred by him.
18. Sri V.V.N.Narayana Rao, learned counsel for he petitioners, addressed arguments and whereas Sri K.G.Krishna Murthy, learned senior counsel, representing Sri K.Ramamohan, learned counsel for the respondents, addressed arguments.
19. Now, the points for determination are:
1. Whether the petitioners made out a prima facie case and balance of convenience in their favour and against the respondents?
2. Whether the petitioners suffer irreparable loss and injury on account of refusal to grant temporary injunction as requested against the respondents?
3. To what relief?
POINT No.1:-
20. The burden is on the petitioners to establish prima facie their claim and cannot depend on laches or weakness in the case of the respondents. Particularly having regard to nature of the dispute between the parties in this matter, where essentially, it is in relation to their status, the petitioners should also prove and establish that they are given to such conduct, which is otherwise bona fide and did not suffer from any deficiencies in relation to their activities vis-à-vis the situation they have MVR,J CRP Nos.2838,2741 of 2019 6 been holding, including towards the respondents. When the dispute is in relation to the affairs of a Church, an evangelical body, the courts must be circumspect while granting an injunction in relation to intra-office instances.
21. Sri V.V.N.Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that the respondents did not dispute the status of the petitioners that they were admittedly elected Presidents of the Synods of East Guntur and West Godavari respectively in a convention appropriately convened by all the eligible and that it was to the notice of the respondents as well as accepted by them.
22. On behalf of the respondents, Sri K.G.Krishna Murthy, learned Senior Counsel, contended that the activities of the respondents are so detrimental for the cause of the institution, that they did not deserve to remain as such and the material on record clearly made out that the 1st petitioner had abandoned the claim filing an appropriate application in the trial court in I.A.No.35 of 2019, which was permitted by the learned trial Judge, after a careful consideration including upon verifying personally from him. Thus, it is contended by the learned Senior Counsel that after completely satisfying that such withdrawal of the 1st petitioner was voluntary, he was permitted to withdraw from the matter.
23. The learned Senior counsel further contended that in respect of the claim of the 2nd petitioner, the material on record clearly reflected that he was suspended from holding such post of President of West Godavari Synod after initiating appropriate action including calling for explanation from him, when certain complaints were received, which are reflected in Ex.B1 to Ex.B6 and Ex.B9 and the attempt of the petitioners in initiating MVR,J CRP Nos.2838,2741 of 2019 7 this action is to stall any action by the Executive Counsel of the Church against them. Thus, it is pointed out by the learned senior counsel that the approach of the petitioners for an equitable relief itself is unclean and that the learned trial Judge considered the matter in proper perspective, which brooks no interference.
24. The 1st petitioner admittedly had withdrawn himself from the main petition presenting I.A.No.35 of 1990. His very attempt in fling I.A.No.321 of 1998 in the trial court makes out that he is out of office as Presiding of East Guntur Synod and thereafter, made such an attempt to participate in the matter in the trial Court.
25. In I.A.No. 35 of 2019, the learned trial Judge, when a request was made by the 1st petitioner to permit discontinue to prosecute the matter, as seen from the order dated 28.01.2019, carefully considered and meticulously, upon personally enquiring him. This order is extracted in I.A.No.321 of 2018 in the order dated 12.06.2019. Therefore, when he himself voluntarily abandoned the matter, question of considering his request for grant of temporary injunction against the respondents cannot arise. Similarly, for the same reason, his request to come on record once again under the garb of an application under Section 151 CPC in I.A.No.321 0f 2018, is impermissible. Rightly, the learned trial Judge dismissed such attempt of the 1st petitioner.
26. The main petition was instituted in the trial Court on 19.04.2018. As seen from the averments in the main petition as well as the affidavit of the 1st petitioner, there were complaints against the 2nd petitioner in respect of affairs of West Godavari Synod. Ex.P1- notice dated 14.11.2018, Ex.P5-Certified Copy of SOP No. 1204 of 2018 on the MVR,J CRP Nos.2838,2741 of 2019 8 file of the Court of learned IV Additional District Judge, Guntur filed by the 2nd petitioner herein against the respondents 1 and 2 as well as another, showing that it was instituted on 28.11.2008, relate to the period subsequent to the institution of the main O.P. The effect of Ex.P6-report of 80th Annual Synod Convention of West Godavari dated 08.04.2017, Ex.P7-a communication from AELC, Guntur dated 25.04.2017 relate to the budget, Ex.P8 dated 07.03.2018 communication sent to the Treasurer AELC,Guntur by the 2nd respondent in respect of the grant of Rs.2,00,000/- in the year 2017, have to be considered in the light of the complaint sent against the 2nd petitioner and other material in Ex.B1 to Ex.B6, Ex.B8 and Ex.B9.
27. As seen from Ex.B1, a serious complaint was made against the 2nd petitioner relating to mal-administration of West Godavari Synod including in respect of the funds received from AELC, Guntur. On 27th & 28th February, 2018 there was a meeting of the Executive Council of the Church at Guntur in which it was resolved to dissolve then existing Synod Executive Committee of West Godavari Synod and Executive Council of AELC was asked to act as the Executive Committee of West Godavari Synod in its place. This meeting was prior to the institution of the main O.P.
28. Ex.B3 is a notice issued by the 1st respondent to have a meeting on 02.04.2018 at 11.00 a.m. to discuss the issue of West Godavari Synod requiring attendance of all concerned. Ex.B4 reflects that the said meeting went on, in which it was decided to accept the recommendation of the 1st respondent to call for explanation from the 2nd petitioner. Thus, Ex.B3 and Ex.B4 show and relate to the proposed action MVR,J CRP Nos.2838,2741 of 2019 9 against the 2nd petitioner. Ex.B5 is the copy of show-cause-notice dated 17.04.2018, thereby, issued to the 2nd petitioner, by the 1st respondent calling for his explanation for taking disciplinary action. This disciplinary action is permissible under Section 4 of Article-9 of the Constitution of the Synod. However, the contention of the 2nd respondent is that there is no proof that this show-cause-notice was served on him and that Ex.B7 by itself cannot make out the same.
29. Even if this contention is accepted, events that went on till then do indicate that they became the propelling factor to the 2nd petitioner to file the petition against the respondents. Neither the petition nor the affidavit of the 1st petitioner throw any light on these events and that they are silent. When this backdrop is considered, it is manifest that there is serious suppression of facts by the petitioners, particularly the 2nd petitioner.
30. Subsequent events covered by Ex.B8 to Ex.B10 make out that the 2nd petitioner was suspended from being the President of Synod of West Godavari. Suspension of the 2nd petitioner, as rightly contended for the petitioners is not reflected in the counter of the respondents. It is an event subsequent to the institution of the petition. Learned trial Judge could not have laid emphasis on this factor. The events so closely connected to each other require a deeper consideration in a regular enquiry in the main O.P. But, this factor does not by itself stand as a vitiating circumstance against the impugned order nor the petitioners stand to gain on account of it.
31. When all these events and circumstances are considered together and in tandem, they do prove that the petitioners miserably MVR,J CRP Nos.2838,2741 of 2019 10 failed to make out a prima facie case in their favour, requiring to accept their version for grant of temporary injunction as prayed, against the respondents. Thus, the petitioners have failed to make out a prima facie case in their favour.
32. These circumstances are sufficient to hold that the balance of convenience tilts in favour of the respondents particularly in the light of a situation so created calling for certain attention to manage the institution viz., both the Synods and bestowing attention on their administration. Thus, the balance of convenience lies more in favour of the respondents than the petitioners. Thus, this point is answered. OINT No.2:-
33. In view of the findings on point No.1, possible irreparable loss and injury, which cannot be compensated in monetary terms, suffered by the petitioners, is not foreseen. This factor alone is sufficient and to hold this point against the petitioners and in favour of the respondents. POINT No.3:-
34. In view of the findings on points 1 and 2, these two revision petitions should necessarily fail. Accordingly, they have to be dismissed.
35. In the result, both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
All pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed and interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated.
___________________ M. VENKATA RAMANA, J Dt: 06.03.2020 RR MVR,J CRP Nos.2838,2741 of 2019 11 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. VENKATA RAMANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 2838, 2741 OF 2019 Dt: 06.03.2020 RR MVR,J CRP Nos.2838,2741 of 2019 12 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. VENKATA RAMANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 2838, 2741 of 2019 COMMON ORDER:
In the result, both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
All pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed and interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated.
________________________ M. VENKATA RAMANA, J Dt: 06.03.2020 RR