One Mr. Boddu Yohan vs "In Our Opinion
2023 Latest Caselaw 1284 AP

              HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO

                      Writ Petition No. 8366 of 2021

ORDER:

One Mr. Boddu Yohan, petitioner filed this Writ Petition seeking

the following relief/s:

"to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one

in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring action of the 5th respondent giving a go by to the directions of Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.17759 of 2019 and W.P.No.18281 of 2019 dated 02.01.2020, the members list prepared by Sub- Committee appointed by Administrative Committee, dated 18.03.2021, representation made by the petitioner dated 25.02.2021, letter addressed by 9th respondent dated 27.02.2021, without submitting records asked by the 1st respondent, without preparing final voters/members list, going ahead with the elections from where it was stopped on 08.01.2019, without considering the orders of the Synod Secretariat, Chennai to conduct elections afresh, in a secrete manner without publishing the notice dated 05.04.2021 scheduled to conduct elections on 12.04.2021 & 13.04.2021 with 534 voters/members as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently set aside the notice dated 05.04.2021, wherein the elections were scheduled on 12.04.2021 and 13.04.2021 at HRD, Aashirvad Bhavan, Machilipatnam at 8.00 AM and also direct the 3rd and 4th respondents to conduct enquiry in the 5th respondent organization in respect of preparation of voters/members list, irregularities being committed by 5th respondent/Bishop and his brother T.Ravi Kumar in the 5th respondent/Dioceses and pass such other order or orders..."

                                      2                                MGR, J

                                                             W.P.No.8366 of 2021

2. This Court on 11.04.2021 while issuing rule nisi in I.A.No.1 of

2021 granted an ad interim direction not to proceed with the conduct of

elections of adjourned Diocesan Council (2019-22) proposed to be held

on 12.4.2021 and 13.4.2021 at HRD, Aashirvaad Bhavan,

Machilipatnam at 8.00 AM for a period of three weeks. The said interim

order was extended from time to time and finally, vacated by order

dated 15.12.2021 in I.A.No.2 of 2021 in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in

W.P.No.8366 of 2021.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that there are several non-Christian

members who are voters and some of them have resigned and some of

them died but they are also included in the list of the Diocesan Council

(Church of South India Trust Association, Krishna-Godavari Diocese

Unit). To rectify the defects in the voters list, this Court in

W.P.No.17759 and 18281 of 2019 dated 02.1.2020 directed as follows:

"The counsel for the petitioners also submits that the Synod Secretariat i.e., the Head Office of the Church of South India passed an order on 28.11.2019, which spells out that all actions taken by the Administrative Committee are deemed to be those of the Synod on behalf of the Krishna-Godavari diocese and shall be binding on all concerned, and the Administrative Committee shall oversee the reconvening of the Diocesan Council 2019-2021 and the completion of all elections including that of Executive Committee and all Committees and Boards. The counsel for the petitioners admit that the orders of the Synod Secretariat are binding on all dioceses.

Hence, in the above circumstances, this Court deems it fit to make it clear that the order of the Synod Secretariat shall be brought into effect and the Administrative Committee shall oversee reconvening of the elections of the Diocesan Council 2019-2021, keeping in view the representation given by the petitioners on 05.11.2019 with regard to inclusion of non-

                                      3                                MGR, J

                                                             W.P.No.8366 of 2021

Christians as members. Status quo orders granted in both the writ petitions shall stand vacated."

The order of the Synod Secretariat shall be brought into effect and the

Administrative Committee shall oversee reconvening of elections of the

Diocesan Counsel (2019-2021) keeping in view the representation given

by the petitioner on 05.11.2019. In pursuance of the directions, the

Election Sub-Committee consisting of Rev.K.Edwin Sudhar (Convener),

Very Rev.C.L.Jasper (Member), Smt. Indupalli Vijayakumari (Member),

Advocate Matta Jayakar (Member) and Advocate K.B.Sunder (Member)

submitted report and the consolidated statement of voters list. Based

on the final report, without deleting the improper (Clergy), improper

(Laity), retired, died, resigned, non-Christians, deputation, not

submitted voters, the respondent No.5 is proceeding to conduct election

on 12.4.2021 and 13.4.2.2021 despite the direction issued in the earlier

W.P.Nos.17759 and 18281 of 2019. Both the writ petitions were

disposed of by a common order dated 02.01.2020, which reads thus:

"Writ petition No.17759 of 2019 is filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to declare the action of respondents 1 & 2 in allowing the respondents 6 & 7 to hold elections to 5th respondent on 08.11.2019 & 09.11.2019 in spite of specific direction in CP No.2/2016 by order dated 08.1.2019 and also the status quo orders passed in OS No.373/2018 dated 18.5.2018 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, as illegal, and consequently direct the respondents 1 & 2 to take appropriate action against respondents 6 to 8 not to hold elections to 5th respondent.

2. The grievance of the petitioner, in W.P.No.17759 of 2019, is that respondents 6 & 7 are not conducting the elections properly and in that regard, this Court passed the order of 4 MGR, J

W.P.No.8366 of 2021

status quo on 08.11.2019 with regard to conduction of elections, if they are not completed at 01.00 pm.

3. Writ Petition No.18281 of 2019 is filed, on 12.11.2019, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to declare the action of respondents 1 & 2 in conducting executive body / committee meeting by respondents 4 to 7, without issuing any prior notice/intimation as contemplated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 and rules made thereunder and consequent to the orders passed by this Court in W.P. No.17759 of 2019, as illegal. Similar order of status quo is passed on 14.11.2019.

4. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and Sri Velivela Sreenivasa Rao, the counsel for the unofficial respondents, in both the writ petitions.

5. The contention of the counsel for the unofficial respondents is that the allegations against the unofficial respondents have nothing to do with the conducting of the elections. He also files the proceedings of the Election Officer with regard to conduction of elections, which shows that by 12.55 pm on 08.11.2019 elections to the post of 1. Secretary, 2. Assistant Secretary and

3. Treasurer are over . After 1.15 pm, certain elections were held.

6. The counsel for the petitioners also submits that the Synod Secretariat i.e., the Head Office of the Church of South India passed an order on 28.11.2019, which spells out that all actions taken by the Administrative Committee are deemed to be those of the Synod on behalf of the Krishna-Godavari diocese and shall be binding on all concerned, and the Administrative Committee shall oversee the re-convening of the Diocesan Council 2019-2021 and the completion of all elections including that of Executive Committee and all Committees and Boards. The counsel for the petitioners admits that the orders of the Synod Secretariat are binding on all dioceses.

7. Hence, in the above circumstances, this Court deems it fit to make it clear that the order of the Synod Secretariat shall be brought into effect and the Administrative Committee shall oversee re-convening of the elections of the Diocesan Council 2019-2021, keeping in view the representation given by the petitioners on 05.11.2019 with regard to inclusion of non- Christians as 3 members. Status quo orders granted in both the writ petitions shall stand vacated. 8. With the above observations and direction, the writ petitions are disposed of.

                                   5                               MGR, J

                                                         W.P.No.8366 of 2021

4. Sri N. Ravi Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

would contend that the respondents instead of conducting elections per

the orders of the Synod Secretariat and as per the Krishna-Godavari

Diocesan Council rules and in spite of directions of this Court in

W.P.No.17759 and 182812 of 2019, without deleting improper (Clergy),

improper (Laity), retired, died , resigned, non-Christians, deputation,

not submitted voters and proceeding to conduct elections on 12.4.2021

and 13.4.2021 is illegal and arbitrary. Against the consolidated voters

list prepared with 534 voters, out of which clergy proper voters are 133,

lay proper voters are 218 and in all the eligible voters are 351 voters to

elect Diocesan Council 2019-2021 Executive Committee and all its

members and the remaining 183 voters/members are improper, retired,

died, resigned, non-Christian, deputation voters and those who did not

submit religious proof.

5. Per contra, Sri J. Prabhakar, learned Senior Counsel and learned

Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing for the respondents

would contend that the writ petition is not maintainable as the dispute

is only with regard to preparation of voters list and conduct of elections

to Diocesan Council 2019-2021, which is purely a private body and the

writ petition is not maintainable. He placed reliance on the following

judgments of this Court and Apex Court.

                                           6                                    MGR, J

                                                                     W.P.No.8366 of 2021

(1) Shaji K. Joseph Vs. V. Viswanath and others1, wherein the

issue that fell for consideration before the Apex Court is that whether

interference of High Court is called for in the election process

commenced for election of member of Dental Council of India under the

provisions of Dentist Act, 1948. The Apex Court following the decision

of the Apex Court in the case of in N.P.Ponnuswami Vs. State of

Maharashtra ((2001) 8 SCC 509) in view of the settled legal position, it

is held at para-15 as under:

"In our opinion, the High Court was not right in interfering with the process of election especially when the process of election had started upon publication of the election program on 27th January, 2011 and more particularly when an alternative statutory remedy was available to Respondent no.1 by way of referring the dispute to the Central Government as per the provisions of Section 5 of the Act read with Regulation 20 of the Regulations. So far as the issue with regard to eligibility of Respondent no.1 for contesting the election is concerned, though prima facie it appears that Respondent no.1 could contest the election, we do not propose to go into the said issue because, in our opinion, as per the settled law, the High Court should not have interfered with the election after the process of election had commenced. The judgments referred to hereinabove clearly show the settled position of law to the effect that whenever the process of election starts, normally courts should not interfere with the process of election for the simple reason that if the process of election is interfered with by the courts, possibly no election would be completed without court's order. Very often, for frivolous reasons candidates or others approach the courts and by virtue of interim orders passed by courts, the election is delayed or cancelled and in such a case the basic purpose of having election and getting an elected body to run the administration is frustrated. For the aforestated reasons, this Court has taken a view that all disputes with regard to election should be dealt with only after completion of the election."

    (2016) 4 SCC 429
                                          7                                    MGR, J

                                                                    W.P.No.8366 of 2021



        (2)       In R. Issac Robi Vs. The Secretary to Government,

Higher Education, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George,

Chennai2, wherein the petitioner/appellant filed W.P(MD).No.8852 of

2017 praying for a direction to the respondents 1 to 5 not to allow the

8th respondent from implementing notice dated nil published by the 8th

respondent in their Official Magazine "Desopakari" in May 2017

cancelling the proposed election for the office bearers to the CSI

Kanyakumari Dioceses scheduled on 25, 26 & 27.05.2017 and

consequently appointment the Hon'ble former Judge of the High Court

as Election Officer to conduct an election for the office bearers to C.S.I.

Kanyakumari diocesan as per the constitution and rules of C.S.I.

Kanyakumari diocese for the term commencing from the date of

assumption of office bearers with suitable directions to the 9th

respondent for sufficient police protection. The learned Single Judge of

the Madras High Court at Madurai Bench dismissed the Writ Petition

holding that the Writ Petition is not maintainable against the private

party. Against which, Writ Appeal (MD).No.540 of 2017 has been filed

and the same has been dismissed holding that the Diocese is a private

body and not discharging any public duty. In para-15 it is held as

follows:

"The diocese is a private body but not discharging any public duty. The appointments of the staffs of the institution by the diocese and receiving funds from the government under minority aided schemes are different from the internal election dispute. In the present case the petitioner is

2017 SCC OnLine Mad 2380 8 MGR, J

W.P.No.8366 of 2021

seeking a prayer to issue Writ of Mandamus by directing election to the diocese is not at all maintainable and no such direction can be given to the private individual by invoking extraordinary power conferred to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The diocese is a private body not discharging public duty and internal disputes between two groups with regard to the administrative dispute cannot be resolved in this writ petition."

(3) In the case of Santhosh Kumar S. and another Vs.

Church of South India, represented by its Secretary3, after

elaborately considering the various judgments of the Apex Court and

High Court held that the Churches which did not perform any public

duty or public function in solemnising marriage between two members

of Dioceses, a writ would not lie to enforce purely private law rights,

which in the case of the petitioners is solemnisation of their marriage.

(4) In K.K.Saksena Vs. International Commission on

Irrigation and Drainage and others4, the Apex Court while dealing

with the State and its instrumentalities of expression or any person or

authority in Article 12 of the Constitution held that the International

Commission on Irrigation and Drainage is a private trust, not an

authority and not State nor instrumentalities and would not come

within the expression of any other person or authority. In Para-53 of

the judgement it is held as under:

"In the present case, though we have held that ICID is not discharging any public duty, even otherwise, it is clear that the impugned action does not involve public law element and no

2019 SCC OnLine Ker 3125

(2015) 4 SCC 670 9 MGR, J

W.P.No.8366 of 2021

"public law rights" have accrued in favour of the appellant which are infringed. The service conditions of the appellants are not governed in the same manner as was the position in Andi Mukta Sadguru."

The decisions have more bearing on the issue raised in the present Writ

Petition with regard to election and the same is purely governed by the

constitution of Church of South India Trust Association, which is a

private body not created by any statute or authority. Hence, the Writ

Petition is not maintainable.

6. He would further submit that the election process was initiated to

held elections for 36th Sessions of Diocesan Council to be held on

08.11.2019 and 09.11.2019. The petitioner and four others filed

W.P.No.17759 of 2019 and sought for an interim direction not to hold

elections. In the said writ petition, an order of status-quo was passed

on 08.11.2019 with regard to conduct of elections if they are not

completed by 1.00 PM as on 08.11.2019. The process of election was

not completed by 1.00 PM, but the Election Officer gave a report that

the elections are completed by 1.00 PM. In these circumstances, the

Head Office of Chennai (Synod) appointed an Administrative Committee

on 28.11.2019 and informed the same to 5th respondent. The said

Committee has taken over charge in conducting of day to day affairs of

the 5th respondent. The said writ petition is disposed of along with

W.P.No.18281 of 2019, by vacating the status quo order granted in both

the writ petitions. Writ Appeals were filed, however, they were 10 MGR, J

W.P.No.8366 of 2021

withdrawn subsequently hence, the orders in the above writ petitions

have become final. The Administrative Committee appointed by the

Central Office appointed a Sub-Committee to scrutinize and verify the

voters/members list on the basis of religious identify proof and as per

the report submitted by the sub-committee, there are 534 voters.

According to report, 428 voters submitted their religious proof and the

said list was approved on 05.04.2021. While preparing the said list

with 428 members, the dead/retired/resigned and also the persons,

who could not submit proof of their religion, were deleted. Whether the

above 428 persons are the eligible members to vote in the election or

only 351 persons are eligible voters as contended by the petitioner is a

disputed question of fact, which cannot be decided in a writ petition

and the same requires adjudication by proper pleadings, documents

and evidence.

7. In the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of the

learned counsel and perused the record, this Court found that the

dispute is with regard to conduct of elections to the Krishna-Godavari

Diocesan Council and its Sub-Committees for the years 2019-2021 and

preparation of improper voters list and convening of the meeting to hold

elections for 36th Sessions of Diocesan Council is being conducted

contrary to the orders passed in W.P.Nos.17759 and 18281 of 2019 is

illegal and arbitrary. But, in fact, the said writ petitions were disposed

of vacating the status quo order granted in both the writ petitions. Writ 11 MGR, J

W.P.No.8366 of 2021

Appeals filed by the respondents were dismissed as withdrawn. The

orders in the writ petitions have become final. Thereafter, the Synod

Secretariat, Head Office of Church of South India passed an order on

28.11.2019 and as per the orders passed in W.P.No.17759 and 18281

of 2019, an Administrative Committee was appointed which shall

oversee the reconvening of the Diocesan Council 2019-2021 and to

finalize the elections, including that of Executive Committee and all

Committees and Boards. In view of conduct of elections on 12.04.2021

and 13.04.2019 for the post of Secretary, Assistant Secretary and

Diocesan Treasurer and subsequent vacation of the interim order dated

11.4.2021 on 15.12.2021 in I.A.No.2 of 2021 in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in

W.P.No.8366 of 2021, nothing survives for adjudication. Further,

Krishna-Godavari Diocesan Council is a private body and it is under the

administrative control of the Synod. The writ petition is filed only with

regard to conduct of elections to Diocesan Council illegally and

irregularly, without preparing a final voters list and it is purely a private

dispute between the members of the Krishna-Godavari Diocesan

Council. Synod Secretariat has already taken up the issue. In view of

the decisions referred to supra, this Court has no iota of doubt in

holding that the issue raised in this writ petition with regard to conduct

of elections and preparation of voters list is purely a dispute between

the members of the private body and not governed by any statutory 12 MGR, J

W.P.No.8366 of 2021

provisions and its actions are not amenable to writ jurisdiction and the

writ petition is not maintainable.

8. In view of the above discussion, the Writ Petition is devoid of

merits and is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed with

costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) payable by the

petitioner to the Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority within a

period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order,.

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

stand closed.

                                                        ___________________
                                                        M. GANGA RAO, J
Date:      .03.2023

CSR
                      13                           MGR, J

                                         W.P.No.8366 of 2021



      HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO




       WRIT PETITION No.8366 OF 2021

             DATE:        -03-2023




CSR