Andhra Evangelical Lutheran ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2021 Latest Caselaw 1879 AP

            HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

                           W.P.No.4781 of 2021

ORDER:

The petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'AELC') is a society, which

was initially registered, under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. AELC

consists of six synods, viz., Central Guntur Synod, East Guntur Synod,

West Guntur Synod, East Godavari Synod, West Godavari Synod and

Visakha Synod. These synods are further divided into several Parishes.

These Parishes are again categories as 'A, B and C' according to their

strength and their financial capacity. For the purpose of governing the

internal affairs of AELC, each synod has an executive committee for

administering the affairs of the synod. Further every synod holds a

convention every year while the main convention for AELC will be held

once in every two years.

2. The tenure of six synods expired on 31.05.2020. The earlier

election schedule issued on 14.04.2020 had to be given up and a fresh

election notification was issued on 16.06.2020 by the executive council of

AELC, which is the main executive authority, in relation to the affairs of

the AELC, authorising the deponent to the writ affidavit to conduct

elections. Accordingly, elections for the six synods were conducted on

23.11.2020. While the said elections were under process, the deponent to

the writ affidavit had approached this Court by way of W.P.No.21776 of

2020 for a direction against respondents 2 to 7 from interfering in the

election process. This Court, by way of an interim order, dated

02.11.2020, had directed respondents 2 to 7 therein not to interfere with

the election process till 24.11.2020.

                                        2                                RRR,J
                                                          W.P.No.4781 of 2021

3. After the elections had been conducted and the Executive

Council of AELC had approved the elections, the writ petition had become

infructuous and was dismissed accordingly on 30.11.2020

4. It is the contention of the deponent to the writ affidavit that

he was elected as President of AELC/Moderator Bishop on 28.05.2017 and

had took charge on 01.06.2017. It is his case that he was remained as the

President/Moderator Bishop till 31.05.2021 as the tenure fixed under

Article VII (2)(a) of the AELC Constitution is four years.

5. At that stage, one Pastor Rev. Ch. Elia approached the

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru, West Godavari District by way of

O.S.No.55 of 2020 for certain reliefs against the petitioner and the

deponent to the writ affidavit. In the application filed in the said suit for

temporary injunction numbered as I.A.No.221 of 2020, the Additional

Senior Civil Judge, Eluru had granted ad interim injunction. This order was

challenged before this Court by way of C.R.P.No.35 of 2021. By an order

dated 15.01.2021 in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in the above C.R.P., this Court had

suspended the orders of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru. By a

separate order dated 15.01.2021 in I.A.No.3 of 2021 in the same C.R.P.,

this Court had also directed respondents 4 to 6 herein, not to allow the

unofficial respondents in the above C.R.P., to enter into the AELC office.

One of the unofficial respondents in the above C.R.P., was Sri Paster

Rev.Dr. Elia.

6. After the said orders were passed, respondents 4 to 6 locked

the main building of the AELC in Guntur and posted picket in front of the

office and also out side the gate of the compound wall. Instead of

allowing the petitioner to enter into the building and carry on the activities 3 RRR,J W.P.No.4781 of 2021

of the AELC, respondents 4 to 6 prevented the deponent to the affidavit

from entering into the premises. In view of the action of respondents 4 to

6, C.C.No.107 of 2021 was filed before this Court to punish respondents 4

to 6 for violation of the orders of this Court and a Form-I notice was also

issued to respondents 4 to 6. The said contempt case is presently

pending.

7. As respondents 4 to 6 had locked the premises and were

preventing the rightful office bearers of the petitioner from entering into

the premises, the present writ petition has been filed to declare the action

of respondents 4 to 6 in locking the office of AELC and preventing the

deponent to the writ affidavit from discharging his duties as Moderator

Bishop and consequently pass necessary orders.

8. While the writ petition was pending, I.A.No.2 of 2021 was

filed by respondents 7 and 8 to implead them as parties to the writ

petition. This application was allowed on 29.04.2021. in the said I.A., the

7th respondent is again described as AELC rep. by its President/Moderator

Bishop, viz., Most. Rt. Rev. Dr. Elia Ch., and the 8th respondent is the

Executive Council of AELC rep. by Dr. Elia.

9. The contentions raised by Dr. Elia are:-

a) It is true that the deponent to the writ affidavit was initially

elected as the President/Moderator Bishop of AELC in 2017. However, in

the elections conducted for the six synods in 2020, the persons who were

opposing the deponent to the writ petition had been elected to all the

offices in the synods. At that stage, the deponent to the writ affidavit got

opposed about the said election as well as results and tried to threaten

the synod presidents and other office bearers falling in line with him. He 4 RRR,J W.P.No.4781 of 2021

also tried to convene 83rd Annual Convention in an illegal manner. Against

these activities of the deponent to the writ affidavit, the four synod

presidents had filed suits and obtained ad interim injunctions. However,

these are not being shown at any place.

b) It is submitted that apart from these actions, a meeting of

the AELC Council and delegates was conducted on 16.08.2020 regarding

the attitude and activities of the petitioners. Subsequently, another

meeting of the AELC Council and delegates was conducted on 31.08.2020

for calling a special convention for recalling/expelling the deponent to the

writ affidavit. Thereupon, the Adjudication Committee/Six Man Committee

issued notice to the petitioner to attend before it on 08.09.2020 in the

AELC office, Guntur to offer his explanation, failing which the matter

would be decided without his presence. Despite receipt of this notice on

02.09.2020, the deponent to the writ affidavit did not choose to appear

before the Committee and accordingly on 08.09.2020 orders were passed

removing the deponent to the writ affidavit as president/Moderator

Bishop. The copy of the said order was served on the deponent to the writ

affidavit on 09.09.2020.

c) After the removal of the deponent to the writ affidavit, the

AELC Council delegates meeting was held on 01.10.2020 for finalising the

ad hoc committee and for conducting the Special Commission/Election of

AELC. Thereafter, a meeting was held on 10.11.2020 for deciding the

method/process of election of Chairman, Observer and recording

Secretary for conducting Biennial Convention/Election, was also held. On

the basis of these proceedings, a special convention was conducted on

20/21.11.2020 at Christhu Luthern Church at Venkatayapalem, Thulluru 5 RRR,J W.P.No.4781 of 2021

(M) Guntur District. In the election conducted in this convention, Dr. Elia

was elected as Moderator Bishop of AELC.

d) As the deponent to the writ affidavit was interfering with the

affairs of AELC even after he was removed and a new President was

elected, O.S.No.55 of 2020 came to be filed in the Court of Additional

Senior Civil Judge, Eluru against the orders obtained in I.A.No.221 of 2020

in the said suit, C.R.P. mentioned above was filed and orders were

obtained.

e) It is the case of Dr. Elia that on account of the deponent to

the writ affidavit being removed and on account of being elected as

President, he has taken charge of the main office building of AELC and

had been looking into the affairs of AELC. The further contention is that

the building is firmly under the control of Dr. Elia and in view of the orders

of the High Court in the above mentioned C.R.P, he had locked up the

building and was not entering into the building.

10. The 6th respondent has filed a separate counter. In this

counter it is stated that no criminal cases have been registered in all these

disputes. However, in view of the various directions issued in O.S.No.55 of

2020 as well as C.R.P.No.35 of 2021 before this Court, the police, in order

to maintain law and order and keeping in mind the physical and verbal

attacks being indulged by both the groups, arranged a picket to ensure

that no law and order problem would arise. The 5th respondent also took

the stand that all the remaining allegations including the allegation

respondents 4 to 6 locked up the building and did not allow the deponent

to the writ affidavit to enter into the premises are false.

                                            6                               RRR,J
                                                             W.P.No.4781 of 2021

11. Sri K.G. Krishna Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing

for the petitioner in the writ petition would submit that the orders have

been obtained by the other side in O.S.No.55 of 2020 wherein Dr. Babu

and his associates etc., were injuncted from interfering in the

administration of the society and not to conduct any biennial convention

and special convention in respect of the administration of the West

Godavari Synod, till 31.12.2020. This order was suspended by this Court

by an order dated 15.01.2021 in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in C.R.P.No.35 of 2021.

Apart from this, this Court had also granted an order on 15.01.2021 in

I.A.No.3 of 2021 in C.R.P.No.35 of 2021 directing respondents 4 to 6 in

the present writ petition not to allow Dr. Elia to enter into the AELC office,

Becker Compound, Brodipet, Guntur. He submits that in view of the above

directions of this Court, the action of respondents 4 to 6 in locking up the

building and refusing to allow Dr. Babu and his supporters from entering

into the premises of the society, is violative of the orders of this Court and

as such a direction is to be issued to respondents 4 to 6 to allow the

petitioner to enter into the building and toe unlock the building.

12. Sri K.G. Krishna Murthy, learned Senior Counsel also relies

upon the following judgments of this Court, in J. Lakshmi @

Lakshmamma and another v. Commissioner of Police and

Others1; Masthan Saheb v. P.S.R. Anjaneyulu2; and the judgment in

W.P.No.15981 of 2020, dated 11.09.2020, to contend that the police

cannot interfere in a private and civil dispute between the parties.

13. Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the implead respondents submits that the prayer in the writ

2004 (2) ALD Crl. 477

2002 (2) ALD (Crl.) 706 (A.P.) 7 RRR,J W.P.No.4781 of 2021

petition is for a declaration that the action of respondents 4 to 6 in locking

the office premises of the petitioner and preventing the petitioner from

discharging his duties as Moderator Bishop, is incorrect in as much as, the

discharge of duties as a Moderator Bishop can be done even out side the

office premises, and in any event, the said declaration may not arise as it

is Dr. Elia, who had placed lock and key over the premises of the office of

the society and had offered to deposit the said keys with this court.

14. Sri L. Ravichander, learned Senior Counsel appearing for

Dr. Elia would submit that Dr. Babu had been removed as Moderator

Bishop in September 2020 itself, and as such, he would not be entitled to

enter the premises and act as the Moderator Bishop of the society. He

would also submit that the entire case is erected upon the order of this

Court dated 15.01.2021 in C.R.P.No.35 of 2021. The said order only

suspended the order of the trial Court. As the suit filed before the trial

Court along with the applications have already been withdrawn, the order

of this Court would not survive such withdrawal. He also submits that

even if the orders of this Court are said to be in force, the order of

suspension passed by this Court on 15.01.2021 is not a positive direction

that Dr. Babu is entitled to continue as Moderator Bishop of the society or

to operate from the office of the society. Sri L. Ravichander further

submits that as it was Dr. Elia, who had locked the office, the question of

police opening the locks would not arise.

Consideration of the Court:

15. The issue, whether Dr. Babu continues as a Moderator

Bishop or not and whether Dr. Elia is the present Moderator Bishop of the

society, is a dispute which cannot be resolved in these proceedings. It 8 RRR,J W.P.No.4781 of 2021

appears that some proceedings have already been initiated in relation to

the said dispute. In these circumstances, this Court is not going into the

said dispute.

16. The prayer in the writ petition is framed on the premise that

it was respondents 4 to 6 which had locked up the office building. On that

basis the prayer in the writ petition is for a declaration that the action of

respondents 4 to 6 in locking up the building is illegal and for a

consequential direction to respondents 4 to 6 to remove the lock and

permit Dr. Babu to work as the Moderator Bishop of the society.

17. The stand of Dr. Elia, as seen from the affidavit filed in

support of the implead petition being I.A.No.2 of 2021, is that Dr. Elia

and other office bearers of the society were in possession of the office

building and upon receiving the directions of this Court dated 15.01.2021,

directing respondents 4 to 6 not to allow Dr. Elia into the building, had

locked up the building. There is a specific averment in the affidavit that

Dr. Elia is ready and willing to deposit the keys of the office building and

the compound, with this Court. The stand of respondents 4 to 6 is that

they had posted a picket to ensure that there was no law and order

problem.

18. Sri K.G. Krishna Murthy, learned Senior Counsel would draw

the attention of this Court to the counter affidavit filed by Dr. Elia, in

C.C.No.107 of 2021. He sumits that Dr. Elia never took the stand, in that

counter affidavit, that he was in possession of the office of the society or

that he had locked the office of the society. Sri K.G. Krishna Murthy,

learned Senior Counsel submits that the present allegation that Dr. Elia 9 RRR,J W.P.No.4781 of 2021

had locked the office is an after thought and it was respondents 4 to 6

who had locked the office.

19. The stand taken by respondents 4 to 6 read with the

pleadings of Dr. Elia, makes it clear that respondents 4 to 6 are denying

that they have locked up the premises of the society. In view of the

positive assertion made by Dr. Elia that he had locked up the building, this

Court cannot now hold that the office was locked up by respondents

4 to 6.

20. The question whether Dr. Elia could have locked up the

building or not and whether he is entitled to do so, is a matter which

needs to be gone into before the appropriate Court in a properly framed

proceedings.

21. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of leaving

it open to the petitioner herein to approach the appropriate Court of law

to resolve all the aforesaid issues. It is also necessary to direct

respondents 4 to 6 to implement the orders of this Court in I.A.No.3 of

2021 not to allow Dr. Elia to enter into the office of the society as long as

the orders of this Court in I.A.No.3 of 2021 in C.R.P.No.35 of 2021, dated

15.01.2021 are subsisting. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

closed.

_________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

7th May, 2021 Js.

Issue C.C. Tomorrow
                         10                          RRR,J
                                      W.P.No.4781 of 2021




      HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO




                W.P.No.4781 of 2021




                   7th May, 2021
Js.