The Samavesam Of Telugu Baptist ... vs State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2022 Latest Caselaw 1048 AP

                                           1


                    HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO

                                 I.A.No.1 of 2021
                                        in
                          Writ Petition No.14722 of 2020

ORDER:

W.P. No.14722/2020 is filed by the Samavesam of Telugu Baptist Churches

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

challenging the action of respondents 2 & 3 in not considering the petitioners'

representations dated 03.08.2020 submitted to appoint him as Correspondent to 2nd

petitioner's college i.e., S.T.B.C. Degree College, Kurnool City, Kurnool District,

as illegal, irregular and irrational and for a consequential direction.

2. 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 4th 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. So far as the present college i.e.,

S.T.B.C. Degree College, Kurnool is concerned, one Sajeeva Raju has been

functioning as approved correspondent and the name of Sri G.D.D. Diwakar which

is also under consideration.

(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

himself as correspondent of S.T.B.C. Degree College, Kurnool and figure as 2 nd

petitioner. It is submitted that SEDP has nothing to do with the administration of

educational institutions. The resolution dated 13.09.2019 relied upon by Ch.

Solomon Raju is a fabricated document as there was no such minutes of the

General Council of STBC on 13.09.2019 or the alleged minutes of the Board of

Education dt. 13.09.2019 appointing Ch. Solomon Raju as correspondent of

S.T.B.C. Degree College, Kurnool. It is submitted that Solomon Raju has no right

to address educational authorities to appoint him as correspondent of S.T.B.C.

Degree College, Kurnool. He has fabricated the extract of the minutes of the

General Council of the STBC as if it met on 13.09.2019 and also referred to the

minutes of the Board of Education dated 13.09.2019. The S.T.B.C. Degree

College, Kurnool was functioning under the management of STBC, Nellore.

Therefore, the implead petitioner is the affected party because Solomon Raju

cannot represent STBC in any manner.

Hence, the implead petition.

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

petitioner filed W.P.Nos.20621/2020, 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.

4. 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 5.

5. 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.

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

petition to allow?

7. 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 Solomon Raju has no locus standi to file the writ petition in view

of the fact that in different judicial proceedings Solomon Raju and his brother C.D.

Prakash Rao were held to have nothing to do with the STBC. On the other hand,

the contention of Solomon Raju 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.

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

permitted to come on record as a party respondent No.4 in the writ petition.

_________________________ U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J 25.02.2022 MVA