The Samavesam Of Telugu Baptist ... vs State Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1044 AP

                                          1


                HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO

                                I.A.No.1 of 2021
                                       in
                         Writ Petition No.20621 of 2020

ORDER:

W.P. No.20621/2020 is filed by the Samavesam of Telugu Baptist Churches

(for short, 'the STBC') represented by its Director Chilaka Solomon Raju

challenging the order dated 14.10.2020 in File No.ESEO2-18022/91/2019-PS 3-

CSE passed by 2nd respondent refusing to accord permission for reopening of

C.N.M. High School at Bestavaripeta Village & Mandal, Prakasam District.

2. The petitioner's case briefly is thus:

(a) The 1st petitioner established a school named as C.N.M. High School in

1972 to cater the educational needs of the Christian families of Bestavaripeta.

However, some antisocial elements played fraud and made false representation

dated 17.02.2012, due to which the school was closed vide proceedings in

Rc.No.1090/B3/2012 dated 07.09.2012 of 3rd respondent. Subsequently, on the

representations of Cumbum field association and others, the petitioners submitted

proposal to the 3rd respondent seeking permission of renewal of the High School

and for delivery of the furniture of the school and corpus fund etc. When there was

no response, W.P.No.4013/2019 was also filed, wherein by order 26.03.2019

liberty was given to the petitioners to prefer an appeal before 2nd respondent under

Section 89(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 and with a direction to

2nd respondent to dispose of the said appeal in accordance with law. The

petitioners filed an appeal before 2nd respondent. When the appeal was not

disposed of, the petitioners filed W.P.No.14101/2020, wherein a direction was

given to 2nd respondent to dispose of the appeal. Accordingly, 2nd respondent

disposed of the appeal on 14.10.2020. However, said appeal was dismissed by 2 nd

respondent. Hence, the writ petition challenging the orders of respondents 2 & 3.

3. While so, I.A.No.1/2021 is filed by Rev. J.M.Franklin representing himself

as General Secretary of STBC to implead him as 7th respondent in the writ petition.

His case is thus:

(a) STBC has been running 44 educational institutions in the State of Andhra

Pradesh and Telangana. One C.D. Prakash Rao, brother of Chilaka Solomon Raju,

claimed himself as Additional General Secretary of STBC. By virtue of order

dated 24.01.1994 passed in W.A.No.61/1994 on the file of this Court, wherein it

was directed to dispose of the suits pending between the rival parties.

O.S.No.118/1991 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore was filed by

STBC against C.D. Prakash Rao, Ch. Solomon Raju and others which was decreed.

O.S.No.40/1994 filed by C.D.Prakash Rao, Ch. Solomon Raju and others was

dismissed by common judgment dated 16.07.1999 declaring that both of them were

not duly elected members of the STBC, which judgment was confirmed in

A.S.No.55/1999 and A.S.No.87/1999 on 28.04.2006 by way of common judgment

of Additional District Judge, Nellore. While the appeals were pending, the

Government of A.P. issued G.O.Rt.627 dated 03.09.2001 for approving

correspondents nominated by C.D. Prakash Rao. The said proceedings were

questioned by STBC in W.P.No.1324/2002, W.P.No.1994/2004 and

W.P.No.2000/2004 wherein the orders of the competent authority were suspended

pending writ petitions by appointing Special Officers. Subsequently, all the writ

petitions came up before a Division Bench of this Court and this Court by virtue of

the order dated 25.07.2016 set aside the G.O.Rt.627 dated 03.09.2001. In spite of

the above Court orders, C.D. Prakash Rao has been indulging in litigation by filing

representations before the educational authorities. He filed W.P.No.32880/2015

before this Court representing STBC. Whereas the petitioner herein filed

E.P.No.264/2017 in O.S.No.118/1991 under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC for

enforcement of injunction against C.D. Prakash Rao and Ch. Solomon Raju. Both

of them filed counter submitting that they never interfered with the administration

of STBC. Thereafter, Solomon Raju approached STBC management expressing

his intention to serve the organization. Out of humanitarian consideration, he was

appointed as Director of Socio Economic Development Project (SEDP) for a

period of one year w.e.f. 01.08.2018. The term was extended for a further period

of one year only till 31.07.2020 vide resolution dated 03.07.2019. However, as

there were several complaints against him that he was involving in the affairs of

educational institutions, properties and field associations, he was removed by

General Council by resolution dated 08.01.2020. One Jay Kanth was appointed as

Director of SEDP by resolution of General Council dated 18.01.2020. So far as the

present school i.e., C.N.M. High School, Bestavaripeta is concerned, the said

school was closed by the education department of the Government of A.P. due to

lack of adequate strength of pupils as per the educational guidelines of the A.P.

Secondary Education.

(b) Solomon Raju is not entitled to represent STBC in any manner. He

ceased to be Director of SEDP w.e.f. 08.01.2020. Therefore, he cannot represent

as correspondent of C.N.M. High School, Bestavaripeta and file writ petition. It is

submitted that SEDP has nothing to do with the administration of educational

institutions. It is the educational Secretary appointed by the Board of Education of

STBC, the management committee of the educational institutions have to

administer the same institutions. Ch. Solomon Raju has no right to address

educational authorities to accord permission to reopen and to administer the

C.N.M. High School, Bestavaripeta and appoint him as correspondent of said

school. He has been fabricating the extract of the minutes of the General Council

of the STBC as if it met and also referring to the minutes of the Board of Education

as it is met. The C.N.M. High School was functioning under the management of

STBC, Nellore before it was closed. The entire movable and immovable

properties where the institution is located are owned and are in possession of

STBC. Therefore, the implead petitioner is the affected party because Solomon

Raju cannot represent STBC in any manner.

Hence, the implead petition.

4. It should be noted that apart from this writ petition, the present writ

petitioner filed W.P.Nos.14722/2020, 15249/2020, 16587/2020, 19938/2020,

20030/2020, 25044/2020, 25828/2020 and 1547/2021 with different prayers

touching the different educational institutions of STBC. It should also be noted

that similar implead petitions identical to present one were filed by Rev.

J.M.Franklin. The official respondents did not file counters in the implead

petitions. So far as the petitioner Solomon Raju is concerned, he filed identical

counters opposing the implead petitions. His contention is thus:

(a) The implead petitioner suppressed the material facts and approached the

Court with unclean hands. He suppressed the very factum of pending of

W.P.No.32331/2017 against the very implead petitioner with a direction to the

C.B.I. to see that the implead petitioner will not leave the State / country. The said

interlocutory order was challenged by way of Intra Court appeal and the same was

dismissed. The allegation against the implead petitioner and some others in that

writ petition was that the implead petitioner sold away the lands by closing the

schools with a view to swallow the same for their personal benefit.

W.P.No.32331/2017 is still pending on the file of the High Court of Telangana. As

such for concealing of the material facts, the implead petition is not maintainable.

In E.P.No.264/2017 in O.S.No.118/1991, the present writ petitioners did not file

any counter affidavit and it was concocted for the purpose of maintaining the E.P.

and the present writ petitioners are taking steps against the counsel who filed

counter without the knowledge of the writ petitioners. The contention of the

implead petitioner that the present writ petitioners was terminated is false and a

misleading statement. In fact, the petitioner is the field member since the year

1988 and till date he is continuing in the said capacity. By then the implead

petitioner was no way concerned with the STBC and with an intention to grab the

properties of the STBC doing all those activities. Hence, the implead petitioner

has no right to agitate the case.

(b) The avowed object for which the schools were established with the funds

donated by the foreigners is to impart education to the poor and needy. However,

for his personal gain, the implead petitioner in collusion with another member

started a modus operandi, first to write letters to the authorities to close down the

schools and then sell away the lands, which were purchased through funds

collected for the said purpose contrary to the avowed object. The other allegations

made in the implead petition are baseless. The contention in the implead petition

that since there was no adequate strength and thereby educational institutions were

closed is false and it is only with an intention to knock away the valuable

properties of the educational institutions.

(c) The further allegation that the Directorship of the petitioner ceased on

08.01.2020 is false and in fact all the members and Directors of the STBC and

SEDP are permanent members to look after the affairs of the institutes. Therefore,

the question of removing the petitioner does not arise. As the enquiry against the

implead petitioner is pending by C.B.I. against unethical acts resorted to by him,

the implead petition is not maintainable.

5. Heard arguments of Sri M.V.Pratap Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner,

Sri Borra Siva Sankar Rao, learned counsel for respondents 1 & 2 / writ

petitioners, and learned Government Pleader for School Education representing the

respondents 3 to 8.

6. Both the learned counsel reiterated their pleadings in their respective

arguments. While it is the contention of the learned counsel for implead petitioner

that the writ petitioners have no locus standi to represent STBC and file writ

petitions, since in several civil suits and writ petitions he was held to be not

connected with the STBC and therefore, for prosecuting the writ petitions the

presence of the implead petitioner is essential; in oppugnation, learned counsel for

petitioner argued that the implead petitioner with an ulterior motive to grab the

funds and assets of the educational institutions run by STBC committed several

misdeeds and therefore, W.P.No.32331/2017 was filed seeking a direction to

respondents 2 to 8 therein to initiate action by directing the officers concerned for

registration of crime and investigation, and the same is pending in the High Court

of Telangana and therefore, implead petitioner has no locus standi to come to the

Court.

7. The point for consideration is whether there are merits in the implead

petition to allow?

8. Point: I gave my anxious consideration to the pleadings and the above

respective arguments of the counsel. It is discernible that the implead petitioner is

not against the filing of the writ petitions for different reliefs. However, his

contention is that the writ petitioner No.2 has no locus standi to file the writ

petition in view of the fact that in different judicial proceedings the writ petitioner

No.2 and his brother C.D. Prakash Rao were held to have nothing to do with the

STBC. On the other hand, the contention of writ petitioner No.2 is that he has

been continuing as member in the society since 1988 and on the other hand, the

implead petitioner himself has no locus standi to be implead as party respondent

for the reason that he committed so many misdeeds and financial embezzlements

and W.P.No.32331/2017 filed by the present writ petitioners seeking C.B.I.

enquiry against the implead petitioner is pending. Be that it may, the aim of both

the writ petitioners as well the implead petitioner is to succeed in the writ petitions

for the sake of STBC. The differences if any are only interse between them. In

that view of the matter and as this Court is not resolving their interse disputes, but

only adjudicating the merits of the case of STBC in the concerned writ petitions, in

my considered view, the implead petition can be allowed permitting the implead

petitioner to come on record as party respondent so as to direct both the writ

petitioners as well as the implead petitioner to assist the Court in adjudicating the

writ petitions in a proper manner. Of course, incidentally the Court can decide

who is the best person to represent the STBC.

9. In the result, the implead application is allowed and implead petitioner is

permitted to come on record as a party respondent No.7 in the writ petition.

_________________________ U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J 25.02.2022 MVA