Andhra Evangelical Lutheran ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2023 Latest Caselaw 4189 AP

             HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

             WRIT PETITION Nos.10887 and 10891 of 2021


COMMON ORDER:

     Heard Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned counsel appearing

for Sri S. Vivek Chandra Sekhar learned counsel for the

petitioners in W.P.No.10891 of 2021, Sri K.G. Krishna Murthy,

learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri K. Rama Mohan

learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.10887 of 2021, Sri

J. Sudheer, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 6 in

W.P.No.10887 of 2021, Sri M.R.K. Chakravarthy, learned

counsel appearing for Respondent No.5 in W.P.No.10891 of

2021, Sri Ravi Sankar Jandhyala, learned Senior Counsel

appearing for Sri A. Rama Koteswara Rao, learned counsel

appearing for Implead Petitioners/Respondent Nos. 15 to 18 in

I.A.No.6 of 2022 in W.P.No.10887 of 2021, Sri K.Vijay Kumar,

learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.8 to 14 in

W.P.No.10887 of 2021, Sri G. Thuhin Kumar, learned counsel

appearing for respondent No.6 in W.P.No.10891 of 2021 &

Respondent No.7 in W.P.No.10887 of 2021 and the learned

Additional Advocate General for the State and Official

Respondents.

RRR,J W.P.Nos.10887 & 10891/2021

2. As all the above matters are interconnected and

between the same parties, they are being disposed of, by way of

a common order.

3. M/s. Andhra Evangelical Lutheran Church is a

Church, which has been in existence for the past 170 years. To

give a legal standing for this Church, a Society was registered

under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 in the year 1932. By

virtue of the repealing provisions of the Andhra Pradesh

Societies Registration Act, 2001, it is deemed that this Society is

a Society, registered under the Provisions of the 2001 Act and

the said Act would be the applicable law.

4. The Andhra Evangelical Lutheran Church, herein

after referred as the Society, consists of about 1200 Churches

and 300 Congregations, spread over various Districts of the

State of Andhra Pradesh. All the aforesaid Churches and

Congregations are organised into 6 synods namely Central

Guntur synod, East Guntur synod, West Guntur synod, East

Godavari synod, West Godavari synod, Visakha synod and the

Synods are further divided into several parishes and the

parishes are further classified as 'A', 'B', & 'C' according to their

strength and financial capacity. The affairs of the Society are

run by a Central Body, which consists of elected members and a

RRR,J W.P.Nos.10887 & 10891/2021

treasurer who is a nominated member. The method of election is

that elections are first conducted for the Synods from which the

electors, who would participate in the election to the Central

Body, are drawn. The electors, so drawn, elect the Central Body,

which would consist of a President, Vice President, General

Secretary, and 12 members from the six Synods and 10 other

members. It may also be noticed that the Treasurer is not an

elected member and is nominated by the Central Body itself. The

election to this Central Body is conducted during the annual

conventions of the Society. The term of all the office bearers and

members of the Central Body, except the President is for a

period of two years. There is some controversy as to the term of

the President. Some of the parties in these writ petitions

contend that the term of the President is four years while some

of the other parties contend that the terms of the President is

only two years.

5. The last undisputed elections to the Society were

conducted in the year 2017. The parties to these Writ Petitions

have different versions of what happened after 2017. Before

considering these versions, it may be noticed that the parties

before this court fall, roughly, into three groups. The first group

is headed by Dr. Frederick Paradesi babu, (hereinafter referred

to as Dr. Babu). The second group is headed by Dr.CH. Elia.

RRR,J W.P.Nos.10887 & 10891/2021

Initially Mr. Lazarus was part of this group. Later, differences

appear to have cropped up between Dr.CH. Elia and Mr. Lazarus

also. The third Group is headed by Mr. Sam Sampath. All of

them contend that they are the rightful and duly elected office

bearers of the Society. This categorisation is being made only for

the purposes of recording the rival contentions and shall not be

treated as a finding of any nature by this court.

6. The respective versions of these three groups are as

follows:

1. Dr. Babu contends as follows:

a) Elections were due for the Synods in 2020 and steps

were taken for conducting these elections in November,

2020. As the official respondents and some private

persons were trying to scuttle these elections the

Society approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.2166

of 2020, for a direction to the respondents therein not

to interfere with the elections. On 20.11.2020, this

Court had given interim directions to conduct the

elections and the elections, were held on 23.11.2020.

After the conduct of these elections, W.P.No.21776 of

2020 was closed as infructuous.

RRR,J W.P.Nos.10887 & 10891/2021

b) One Pastor, Dr.Ch. Elia filed O.S.No.55 of 2020 on the

file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru against Dr.

Babu and obtained ad interim injunction against Dr.

Babu in I.A.No.221 of 2020. The said Order of interim

injunction was challenged in C.R.P.No.35 of 2021 filed

in this Court and in I.A.No.1 of 2021 of the said C.R.P.,

this court suspended the ad interim injunction order on

15.01.2021 and passed another order in I.A.No.3 of

2021 in the same C.R.P. directing Police not to allow

Dr.Ch. Elia and others into the Society's office.

c) As the Police authorities started to favour the other

parties, W.P.No.4781 of 2021 was filed contending that

there was interference by the police authorities in the

management of the affairs of the Society and that the

police authorities were acting in a highly biased manner

in favour of respondent No.6 in W.P.No.10887 of 2021

and others supporting him. This writ petition was

disposed of by this Court on 07.05.2021 holding that

the issues raised in the writ petition, as to who was in

management of the society would best be answered by

approaching the District Court and these questions

cannot be answered by this Court.

RRR,J W.P.Nos.10887 & 10891/2021

d) As the term of the President, Vice President and

General Secretary were expiring in May, 2021, an

election schedule was issued on 04.01.2021, for

conduct of election to the office bearers of the Central

Body. Thereupon, a representation was given to the

District Collector, Krishna for conduct of elections on

21.05.2021 and the District Collector, Krishna granted

permission for conduct of elections on the same day

i.e., on 21.05.2021. The elections were held and results

were also declared showing that Dr. Babu was re-

elected as President, Sri Vijay Prasanna Babu was

elected as Vice President. Sri Chinnam Kishore Babu

was elected as General Secretary.

e) After the conduct of elections, the officer bearers went

to the Central Office of the Society where they were

obstructed by the police, from entering the office of the

Society. This obstruction by the police officials was at

the instance of the by one Sri Lazarus, who is arrayed

as respondent No.6 in W.P.No.10887 of 2021 and

Respondent No.5 in W.P.No.10891 of 2021. These office

bearers had then given a representation dated

30.05.2021, to the District Registrar as well as

respondent No.3 in W.P.No.10887 of 2021 seeking the

RRR,J W.P.Nos.10887 & 10891/2021

intervention of these persons. Thereupon,

W.P.No.10887 of 2021 came to be filed by the Society

represented by Dr. K. Fredrick Paradesi Babu and Mr.

K. Vijaya Prasanna Kumar who claimed to be the

President/Moderator Bishop and Vice-President of the

Society respectively. Similarly, W.P.No.10891 of 2021

came to be filed by the Society represented by Mr.

Chinnam Kishore Babu along with Mr. Moses Arnold

Kollabathula who claimed to be the Secretary and

Treasurer in the Society.

f) The relief sought in both the writ petitions is essentially

the same. In both writ petitions, the petitioners sought

a direction to the police authorities not to interfere in

the management of the affairs of the society.

g) Both these writ petitions came up before this Court on

03.06.2021. After hearing counsel, this Court had

granted interim directions to the police authorities not

to interfere with the conduct of day to day

administration of the society, from its premises, by the

new managing committee, with further liberty given to

the respondents to register a case against persons who

RRR,J W.P.Nos.10887 & 10891/2021

create any law and order problem and to take

appropriate action against them as per law.

h) After this order, memos were filed, on 29.10.2021, in

both the writ petitions, before the Court, in the name of

the learned counsel for the petitioners along with

affidavits said to have been signed by the 1st

petitioners, stating that the matter was settled amicably

and for permission to withdraw the writ petitions. When

this Court took up the said memos and affidavits,

learned counsels for the petitioners stated that no such

memo was filed by the petitioners or by the learned

counsel for the petitioners, in either writ petition, and

the same appear to have been forged. This Court, after

considering these statements had passed an order on

30.06.2022, regarding of the above facts with further

directions to the 1st petitioner to appear before the

Registrar Judicial to record his statement regarding the

false allegations made therein. The Registrar Judicial

was also required to lodge a report with the police

through an officer not below the rank of Joint Registrar

of High Court for registration of a case and

investigation into the same to ascertain who the

culprits were. On that basis, complaints were in both

RRR,J W.P.Nos.10887 & 10891/2021

the writ petitions and the same were registered as

Crime No.156 of 2022 and Crime No.157 of 2022 on the

file of Tulluru Police Station and the same are pending

investigation.

i) As the orders of the Court dated 03.06.2021 were not

being followed and Sri Lazarus and his followers, with

the active cooperation of the police authorities, were not

allowing the writ petitioners to run the organisation

from the Central Office, C.C.No.1012 of 2021 was filed.

j) A learned single Judge of this Court, in C.C.No.1012 of

2021, after due notice to all the parties, passed an

order on 28.03.2022. In this order, respondents 1 to 3

in the contempt case, namely The Superintendent of

Police (Urban), Guntur, The Deputy Superintendent of

Police (West), Guntur, The Station House Officer,

Arundalpet P.S., Guntur were directed to provide police

aid to the petitioners to function from the office

premises and to carryout day to day administration of

1st petitioner society from the office premises with

liberty being given to the respondent authorities to take

appropriate action against Sri Lazarus (respondent

No.4) if he is creating law and order problem in the

RRR,J W.P.Nos.10887 & 10891/2021

office premises. Further, a practising advocate of this

Court was appointed as Advocate Commissioner to

oversee the day-to-day administrative activities of the

petitioner society in the Church premises and the

disturbances created by Sri Lazarus along with his

henchmen in the Church premises and to submit

report to this Court on day to day basis.

k) The Advocate Commissioner received his warrant on

29.03.2022 and sought to execute the warrant.

However, he was obstructed by a mob armed with

dangerous weapons and the gates of the Church/Office

of the Society were locked and the Advocate

Commissioner was not allowed to go into the premises

despite the police officers accompanying the Advocate

Commissioner requesting the persons inside the office

premises to open the gates and allow the Advocate

Commissioner to execute his warrant.

l) The Advocate Commissioner had again visited the

premises on 30.03.2022 and with the help of the police

personnel was able to evict all the persons who were in

unauthorised occupation of the Church and residential

premises situated within the campus of the office of the

RRR,J W.P.Nos.10887 & 10891/2021

society. Thereafter, the Advocate Commissioner has

been submitting reports regarding the functioning of

the society, from time to time, to the Court.

7. Sri K.G. Krishna Murthy, learned counsel appearing

for the petitioners in W.P.No.10887 of 2021 took the Court

through various documents to contend that Sri Lazarus has a

criminal history as seen from the complaints registered against

Sri Lazarus in the State of Karnataka and the rowdy sheet that

is said to have been opened against Sri Lazarus in Karnataka.

Sri K.G. Krishna Murthy had also brought to the notice of this

Court, the report of the learned Advocate Commissioner

appointed by this Court about the manner in which the learned

Advocate Commissioner had been obstructed in executing his

warrant and the various weapons and other deadly instruments

which were found stored in the office of the society. Sri K.G.

Krishna Murthy contend that all these weapons and deadly

instructions were stored by the followers of Sri Lazarus and that

he had also been involved along with Dr.Ch. Elia in inciting

same persons to attack the treasurer of the society with a view

to kill him. However, the treasurer was following in surviving the

attack and Crime No.590 of 2021 was registered in this regard

in Nagarapalem Police Station as Crime No.590 of 2021. He

would point out that no investigation, worth the name, has been

RRR,J W.P.Nos.10887 & 10891/2021

conducted in this case despite the fact that the case had been

registered under Section 307 of I.P.C and the delay/negligence

of the Investigating Officer is only on account of the undue

influence wielded by Sri Lazarus, had got the entire investigation

stopped. He would point out that no steps of any nature were

taken to arrest Sri Lazarus, which action goes to show the bias

and favour being shown by the police in favour of Sri Lazarus.

He would point out that an L.P.A had been filed against the

order of Court dated 28.03.2022 in C.C.No.1012 of 2022 and the

same had been closed without modifying or changing the order

of the learned Single Judge dated 28.03.2022.

8. Sri K.G. Krishna Murthy would submit that the

material placed by the petitioners, in W.P.No.10887 of 2021, is

sufficient to demonstrate that the petitioners have been elected

as the office bearers of the society and the manner in which the

police authorities have acted to shield Sri Lazarus is sufficient to

demonstrate that the petitioners would not be able to discharge

their lawful functions as the office bearers of the society unless

this Court intervenes and ensures that the police authorities do

not interfere in the affairs of the society with a view to supplant

the petitioners with Sri Lazarus and other persons.

RRR,J W.P.Nos.10887 & 10891/2021

9. Sri K.G. Krishna Murthy would also submit that the

pleadings relating to the subsequent events showing the manner

in which the 6th respondent as well as Dr.Ch. Elia and Sam

Sampath are behaving so as to mould the relief in the writ

petition and to protect the society as well as the petitioners. He

would rely upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Pasupuleti Venkateswaralu vs. Motor and General Traders1

for this purpose.

10. Sri K.G. Krishna Murthy would also point out that

Dr.Ch. Elia claiming that he is the President of the Society and

has filed S.O.P.No.107 of 2021 that he is the President of AELC,

Sri Sam Sampath filed S.O.P.No.245 of 2022 before the Principal

District Judge, Guntur for an injunction simplicitor against both

Dr. Babu and Dr.Ch. Elia, some of the Pastors working in the

society had also approached the Principal District Judge,

Guntur by way of O.P.No.112 of 2022. He contends that apart

from this, there are also O.P No.513 of 2021 before the III

Additional District Judge, Guntur, S.O.P.No.15 of 2022 before

the III Additional District Judge, Guntur and S.O.P.No.647 of

2021 before the II Additional District Judge, Guntur essentially

contending that Dr. Babu and Dr.Ch. Elia are to be declared as

(1975) 1 SCC 770

RRR,J W.P.Nos.10887 & 10891/2021

persons who are not eligible to contest the elections and also

that their elections themselves were illegal and would have to be

set aside. He submits that these O.Ps have been filed only for

the purpose of creating a controversy where none exist and for

the purpose of bringing down a lawful and properly elected office

bearers of the society.

11. Sri C.V Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.10891 of 2021 contends

that Dr. Babu and his committee members are the duly elected

office bearers of the society and any step to be taken against

them would have to be in the Civil Court under the provisions of

the Societies Registration Act, 2001. In the present case, various

petitions have been filed. However, no orders of any nature have

been passed against Dr. Babu or his office bearers till today. He

would contend that the directions of this Court in W.P.No.4781

of 2021 dated 07.05.2021 requires all the parties to the present

set of disputes to approach the Civil Courts for relief. In the

absence of any relief being given by the Civil Court, it would not

be appropriate for these parties to interfere with the functioning

of the society. He would further submit that after Dr. Babu term

was expired in May, 20221 has now been extended by further

period of four years till May, 2025. He would also submit that

elections of 2021 have not been challenged anywhere and

RRR,J W.P.Nos.10887 & 10891/2021

consequently known of the parties, can forcibly remove Dr.

Babu from the post of President of Society or stop Dr. Babu from

functioning as the Present of the Society.

12. Version of Dr.Ch. Elia:

The elections for the synods were conducted in 2020.

However, the persons elected into the synods, in these elections,

were not favourable to Dr. Babu due to which he sought to

oppose the election and threaten the synods Presidents and

other office bearers to fall in line with him. Due to this undue

pressure and threats, Presidents of four synods, had filed suits

and obtained interim injunction against Dr. Babu.

13. In two meetings conducted on 16.08.2020 and

31.08.2020 the attitude and activities of Dr. Babu were

discussed and a six man committee was constituted for

conducting an enquiry in this regard and notices were issued to

Dr. Babu to attend a committee meeting on 08.09.2020 for this

purpose. However, Dr. Babu refused to attend the said meeting.

In view of the non cooperation of Dr. Babu in the enquiry, orders

were passed removing Dr. Babu from the office he was holding

and a special convention was passed on 20/21st November,

2020 wherein Dr.Ch. Elia was elected as President of the

Society.

RRR,J W.P.Nos.10887 & 10891/2021

14. Since Dr. Babu was interfering in the affairs of the

Society even after his removal, Dr.Ch. Elia had filed O.S.No.55 of

2020 in Eluru, as the new President of the Society, against Dr.

Babu. However, this suit was subsequently withdrawn.

15. It is Dr.Ch. Elia, who was in full control of the office

and he had locked the AELU office to ensure that Dr. Babu does

not enter into the office and create further complications in the

working of the society. Sri G. Thuhin Kumar, learned counsel

appearing for Dr.Ch. Elia would submit that the duly elected

President of the Society is Dr.Ch.Elia in view of the

developments mentioned above and permit Dr. Babu to continue

as the President of the Society would jeopardise the interest of

the Society as Dr.Babu and his family members have been

committing various misdemeanours relating to the affairs of the

Society and the properties of the Society

16. Dr. Babu and the persons supporting him do not

have any role in the society, as they are not properly elected

office bearers of the society. Dr.Ch. Elia, who is presently the

President of the society, would be the person who should be

running the Society. Dr. Babu to ensure that he continues to

remain in power has approached this Court, with false

averments, in order to take over the running of the Society.

RRR,J W.P.Nos.10887 & 10891/2021

17. Sri Lazarus represented by the learned counsel Sri

J. Sudheer would contend that the continuation of Dr. Babu as

the President of the Society is impermissible. He would further

submit that Dr. Babu, under the guise of the present writ

petitions, is continuing to remain at the helm of affairs of the

society though he has not been lawfully elected as the President

of the Society. He would further submit that Dr. Babu has been

indulging in various misdemeanours and is alienating the

property of the Society for his own benefit and the benefit of his

family members. He would submit that in such circumstances,

it would be appropriate to allow the law take its course rather

than keep these matters pending before this Court.

18. Sri Lazarus, while basically accepting the line of

facts set out by Dr.Ch. Elia, would contend that Dr.Ch. Elia

cannot also be permitted to continue as President of the Society

in view of the provisions of Section 14 of the Andhra Pradesh

Registration Act read with the bylaws of the Society.

19. Sri M.R.K. Chakravarthy, learned counsel appearing

for Sri Lazarus in W.P.No.10891 of 2021 contends as follows:

a) It is the contention of Dr. Babu that he had been

elected in the year 2013, 2017 and 2021. This is not

permissible as the bylaws of the Society stipulates that

RRR,J W.P.Nos.10887 & 10891/2021

persons above 61 years are not entitled to contest for a

second time and Dr. Babu has crossed the age of 61

years long back. He would further contend that Section

14 of the Societies Registration Act read in conjunction

with the bylaws makes this aspect even more clear. The

initial term of the President, under the bylaws, as

available with the Registrar of Societies, provides for a

term of two years for the President. It is contended that

there was an amendment to the bylaws in accordance

with the term of President from two years to four years.

However, such an amendment has not been registered

with the Registrar of Societies and consequently the

said amendment does not come into force in view of

Section 8(4) of the Societies Registration Act.

Accordingly, the term of Dr. Babu ended in 2019 and

the contention that he is was entitled to a term of 4

years from 2017 is itself, incorrect and it would have to

be declared that he is not the elected president of the

Society.

b) The elections, which are said to have been conducted in

May, 2021, were never conducted. He would contend

that the fact that there is no election schedule given for

this election and none of the other requirements of the

RRR,J W.P.Nos.10887 & 10891/2021

election have been set out can only lead to the

conclusion that no election had been conducted in May

2021 and the entire exercise is a farce created by Dr.

Babu for maintaining his hold over the Society.

c) W.P.No.10891 of 2021 and W.P.No.10887 of 2021 were

both filed on the same day, for the same relief, by the

same party, namely the Society, which is shown as the

1st petitioner in both writ petitions. Though the Society

is shown to be represented by the President in one writ

petition and the General Secretary in the second writ

petition, the fact remains that it is the same

organisation and as such, the filing of two writ petitions

on the same day is clearly an abuse of the process of

the Court. The petitioners in these two writ petitions

were out of possession of the office of the Society and

were, in fact, not in management of the Society when

the writs came to be filed. This it is only by virtue of the

orders of this Court, dated 28.03.2023, in C.C.No.1012

of 2021, that the petitioners came into possession of

the office of the Society. The report of the Advocate

Commissioner, as to the events that had taken place on

30.03.2022, clearly shows that the Advocate

Commissioner, with the assistance of the police

RRR,J W.P.Nos.10887 & 10891/2021

officials, had evicted persons who were already in

possession of the office of the society and Sri Sam

Sampath, who was residing in the house of the

President/Bishop. This would clearly point to the fact

that the petitioners were not in possession of the office

of the Society and were not running the affairs of the

Society.

20. Sri M.R.K. Chakravarthy would contend that the

orders of the Court and the actions of the Advocate

Commissioner are also hit by a further fact. He would submit

that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had been seized of the matter in

S.L.P. (CIVIL) Diary No. 8796 of 2022, filed against the earlier

orders of the learned single Judge dated 17.02.2022 in

C.C.No.1012 of 2021. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, by an order

dated 29.02.2022, had held that further hearing in the contempt

case should be deferred till the vacate petition filed to vacate the

orders of this Court dated 03.06.2021 was heard. He would

contend that the consequence is that all proceedings in the

contempt case should have remained stayed and the Advocate

Commissioner could not have taken further action after

29.03.2021.

RRR,J W.P.Nos.10887 & 10891/2021

21. Sri Vijay Kumar, appearing for respondents 8 to 14,

in W.P.No.10887 of 2021 would contend that these respondents

are pastors working in various synods of the Society. They

contend that both Dr. Babu and Dr.Ch. Elia are ineligible to

hold the office of President as both of them have passed the age

of 61 years. They would contend that O.P.No.112 of 2022 has

already been filed before the II Additional District Judge, Guntur

seeking clarity in the matter and for a declaration that no

elections were held in November, 2020 and May, 2021and that

all the persons claiming to be the office bearers of the Society

including Sri Lazarus, Dr. Babu and Dr.Ch. Elia should be

declared as persons who are not the office bearers of the Society.

22. Sri Ravi Sankar Jandhyala, learned counsel

appearing for Sri A. Rama Koteswara Rao learned counsel for

respondents 15 to 18 in W.P.No.10887 of 2021 contends that

these respondents are the elected office bearers of the Society. It

is his contention that Sri Sam Sampath who is now impleaded

as respondent No.15 is the President of the Society and the

other three implead respondents are the General Secretary, Vice

President and Council Member respectively of the Society.

23. Sri Ravi Sankar Jandhyala, the learned Senior

Counsel would submit that while the writ petition has been filed

RRR,J W.P.Nos.10887 & 10891/2021

initially for the relief of injuncting the police authorities from

interfering with the activities of the Society, the same has now

increased in scope on account of the various pleadings and

material placed before this Court. He would submit that the

petitioners have now given up the original relief sought in the

petition and are now seeking the interference of this Court in the

functioning of the Society and for a declaration vindicating their

claim of being the office bearers of the Society. He would submit

that such a course of action is impermissible as the Court

cannot grant a relief for which no prayer has been made and for

which there is no pleading. He would further submit that a

private law remedy cannot be converted into public law remedy.

He would drawn the attention of this Court to the various

litigations pending before the District Court in Guntur where no

relief has been obtained by any party and contends that this

Court, acting under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot grant

a relief which the civil Court has not granted. He relies upon the

following judgments for his contention that this Court cannot

grant a relief, which has not been sought. Bharat Amratlal

Kothari and Another vs. Dosukhan Samadkhan Sindhi and

Ors2., P.R. Murlidharan and Ors. Vs. Swami Dharmananda

(2010) 1 SCC 234 (Paragraphs 30 & 31)

RRR,J W.P.Nos.10887 & 10891/2021

Theertha Padar and Ors3., Trojan and Company vs.RM. N.N.

Nagappa Chettiar4., and Bachhaj Nahar vs. Nilima Mandal

and Another5.

24. Consideration of the Court:

The above submissions made by various parties reveal the

deep divisions between the members of the Society and the

disputes relating to the management of the Society. These

disputes can only be resolved after a proper trial in the matter

by a competent Court of civil jurisdiction. In the present case,

this would mean the Court, specified under Section 23 of the

A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001. This Court may also record

the fact that various petitions have already been filed before the

District Court, Guntur. The details of these cases are as follows:

O.P.No.     Name      of    the Name    of    the The Court before
            Petitioner          Respondents       which        the
                                                  petition       is
                                                  pending
SOP No.     Mr. Sam Sampath & Mr. K. F. Paradesi III ADJ, Guntur
245/2022    another             Babu and 3 others
SOP No.     Mr. D. Solmon Raj Ch. Elia & 5 II ADJ, Guntur
112/2022    & 4 others          others
SOP No.     Mr. T. Santha Rao   Mr. K.F.Paradesi III ADJ, Guntur
513/2021                        Babu and another
SOP No.     Mr.     K.     Babu Mr. K.F.Paradesi III ADJ, Guntur
15/2022     Prakash             Babu and another




        (2008) 4 SCC 501 (Paragraphs 11, 12 & 18)

        (1953)1 SCC 456 (Paragraph 38)

(2008) 17 SCC 491 (paragraphs 10,11,13 & 17)

RRR,J W.P.Nos.10887 & 10891/2021

SOP No. Ch. Elia Mr. K.F. Paradesi II ADJ, Guntur 647/2021 Babu & 2 others SOP No. Ch. Elia and 6 Mr. K.F. Paradesi II ADJ, Guntur 107/2021 others Babu and another

25. These disputes would have to be resolved by way of

disposal of the above petitions and/or by way of any other

petitions, that may be filed before the District Court, Guntur.

This Court had already held on similar lines, by its order, dated

07.05.2021, in W.P.No.4781 of 2021. The attention of this Court

is also drawn to another order of a learned Single Judge of this

Court dated 11.05.2023 in I.A.No.3 of 2023 in W.P.No.7592 of

2023. In this case, a writ was sought for declaring the action of

respondents 1 to 3 therein in not allowing the petitioners therein

to operate bank account of A.C College of law, which is one of

the colleges being run by the Society. The learned Single Judge,

by way of an order dated 11.05.2023 had dismissed the writ

petition leaving it open to the parties therein to get the issue

settled under the petitions filed under Section 23 of the A.P

Societies Registration Act, 2001.

26. In the circumstances, this Court declines to go into

the question of deciding the identity of the lawfully elected office

bearers of the Society and leaves it open to the parties in these

cases to agitate their respective grievances before the

appropriate forum.

RRR,J W.P.Nos.10887 & 10891/2021

27. In the normal course, this Court, following the above

observations, would have dismissed the writ petitions with

liberty to the parties to avail of their remedies. Learned Senior

Counsel and the learned counsel who were appearing for various

parties to this litigation have contended that this Court should

not interfere in the functioning of the society as any such

interference would be beyond the relief sought in the writ

petitions. However, there are certain other factors that this

Court would have to consider before parting with these cases.

28. a) The report of the Advocate Commissioner in

relation to the incidents on 30.03.2022 clearly reveals the

presence of weapons, deadly or otherwise, in the office of the

society (which is a church).

b) The attack on one of the persons claiming to be the

treasurer of the society, which is being investigated in Crime

No.590 of 2021 of Nagarampalem Police Station and the

investigation of Crime No.114 of 2022, registered with

Arundalpet Police Station, clearly reveal that the contesting

parties, have suffered physical violence and there is every

possibility of further physical violence in the event of the police

personnel being withdrawn from the premises of the office of the

society.

RRR,J W.P.Nos.10887 & 10891/2021

c) The manner in which a mob obstructed the Advocate

Commissioner, appointed by this Court, from executing the

warrant given to him, would also show that there is every

possibility of some of the parties to the litigation taking the law

into their own hands and trying to impose their will on the

affairs of the society.

d) This Court, had summoned the case diaries of Crime

Nos. 590 of 2021 of Nagarapalem Police station, Crime No.114 of

Arundelpet Police Station and Crime Nos.156 and 157 of 2022 of

Thulluru Police Station. The manner in which the investigation

has been conducted in these cases leaves a lot to be desired.

This Court had passed an order on 30.06.2022, directing the

Registrar Judicial to lodge a report with the police, through an

officer not below the rank of Joint Registrar of this Court, for

registering a case and for investigating into the complaint that

certain documents filed in both the writ petitions for

withdrawing these writ petitions were filed by forging the

signatures of the parties and the counsel of those parties.

Consequently, reports were lodged with the Thulluru Police

Station and the same were registered as Crime Nos.156 and 157

of 2022. Thereafter, the investigating officer recorded some

statements and no further investigation of any nature was

conducted after 22.08.2022. The investigating officer has placed

RRR,J W.P.Nos.10887 & 10891/2021

similar letters, dated 01.07.2022, in both the cases, in the CD

files, showing that letters had been addressed to the Registry of

this Court to produce the specimen signatures of the parties to

the writ petition and the counsel of those parties for sending the

same to the forensic science laboratory. Further, reminders

dated 22.08.2022, in both the cases, are also found in the case

diary. Upon enquiry, the Registry has informed this Court that

no such letters were received by this Court. It appears that the

investigating officer, for the reasons known to him, has decided

to abandon the investigation.

e) Even if the said letters are taken to have been sent to

the Registry of this Court, it would be a very curious case of the

investigating officer directing the Registry of this Court to

produce the specimen signatures of the persons whose

signatures are said to have been forged. That is the job of the

investigating officer. It is not clear as to how the Registry of this

Court can be called upon to do the job of the investigating

officer. The manner in which the investigation into the reports

filed by this Court is being conducted, raises any amount of

suspicion as to the interference from powerful quarters. There is

no other explanation possible for an investigating officer to so

callously abandon investigation into the complaints initiated by

the High Court of the State.

RRR,J W.P.Nos.10887 & 10891/2021

f) This unfortunate situation is a reflection of the fact that

forces powerful enough, to stop an investigation initiated by the

High court of the State, are involved in attempting to control the

affairs of the society. Any closure of the writ petitions, without

an interim arrangement, would amount to an abdication of

responsibility by this court.

28. The Society, while registered under the A.P. Societies

Registration Act, 2001 is actually a Church catering to the

spiritual and religious needs to lakhs of followers. While the

petitioners have approached this Court invoking the jurisdiction

of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the

fact remains that the institution in question is a religious

institution over whom this Court exercises parens patriae

jurisdiction.

29. Dismissing the writ petitions without making

necessary arrangements for running of the affairs of the Society

would leave a dangerous void which could lead to physical

violence and worse. There is a duty cast on this Court, under it

is parens patriae jurisdiction, to ensure that religious bodies

such as the Society herein are protected by this Court.

30. The present management of the society is being

conducted by a set of persons supervised by an Advocate

RRR,J W.P.Nos.10887 & 10891/2021

Commissioner appointed by this Court in C.C.No.1012 of 2022.

All the other parties to the present litigation, contend that these

persons were not in the management of the society and have

now taken over the management of the society on the basis of

the orders of this Court. In that situation, the choice before this

Court is whether the present set of people running the society

should be continued or whether an alternative arrangement

should be made.

31. The question of whether these persons were in

management of the society even before the orders of this Court

dated 28.06.2022 in C.C.No.1012 of 2022, cannot be decided by

this court. However, the fact of the matter is that the affairs of

the society are being managed without too many further

incidents of violence or disruption of the functioning of the

society and the institutions being run by it. The appointment of

any new persons, to run the society would require an exercise of

discretion by this Court and there is every possibility of the

appointment of a new set of persons resulting in disruption of

the working of the society.

32. In the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion

that the present set of persons may be continued for the time

being. The continuation of the present set of persons in

RRR,J W.P.Nos.10887 & 10891/2021

management of shall not be taken to mean that this Court

endorses their position as persons in management of the society

by any means. This Court is also alive to the allegations being

made against the persons in management that they have been

diverting the assets of the society for their own personal benefit.

Though this Court is not going into the veracity of such

allegations, it would be the bounden duty of this Court to

ensure that the persons in management do not misuse their

position pending a resolution of all the said disputes.

36. The reliefs sought in both the writ petitions is that

the police authorities should not interfere in the functioning of

the society and the management of the society by the petitioners

in the writ petitions. The purport of this relief, claimed in the

writ petitions, is that the functions of the society should be

insulated against any outside interference. Viewed from this

angle, it would mean that this Court would have to ensure the

peaceful functioning and management of the society and its

institutions.

37. For all the aforesaid reasons, these writ petitions are

disposed of with the following directions.

RRR,J W.P.Nos.10887 & 10891/2021

1. The present management of the society shall continue along

with the Advocate Commissioner appointed to oversee the

functioning the affairs of the society.

2. The learned Advocate Commissioner shall file monthly

reports, before the district court, in S.O.P.No.245 of 2022 and

S.O.P.No.112 of 2022 till their disposal.

3. The police authorities shall extend all co operation to the

present management, in ensuring that there is no

interference, by any member or outsider of the society, in the

running of the society.

4. If the petitions are not disposed of before the expiry of the

term claimed by Dr. Paradesi Babu, it would be open to any

of the parties to those petitions, to move the Court for making

alternative arrangements about the management of the

society including the appointment of one or more persons to

manage the affairs of the society till the disposal of the

petitions, before the District Court or for conducting fresh

elections to the society.

5. The persons, who are presently in management of the society,

shall only look after the day-to-day affairs of the society and

shall not take any policy decisions in relation to the affairs of

the society or the colleges being run by the society. In the

RRR,J W.P.Nos.10887 & 10891/2021

event of any such requirement, they may approach the

district court hearing the petitions.

6. No property of the society shall be alienated for any reasons

whatsoever, pending disposal of the petitions mentioned in

the table set out above.

7. The C.D. file of Crime Nos.156 and 157 of 2022, of Thulluru

police station, shall be placed before the Superintendent of

Police, Guntur District for taking necessary action in these

two cases. This direction is being given as an opportunity to

the Guntur District Police to redeem themselves. In the event

of no further investigation being carried out, it would always

be open to the parties to this litigation to approach the

concerned Magistrate under the relevant provisions. This

remedy would also be available to the persons whose

signatures are said to have been forged.

8. All these directions, except the direction relating to the

investigation in Crime Nos.156 and 157 of 2022, shall be in

force till the disposal of the S.O.Ps set out in the table above

or in the event of any interim orders being passed by the

district court in any petition filed before the district court. For

this purpose, liberty is available to the parties to approach

the district court for any interim relief and it would be open

to the district court to pass any orders necessary for such

RRR,J W.P.Nos.10887 & 10891/2021

purpose, including the question of interim management of

the society, without being bound by any of the directions of

this court.

9. The District Courts at Guntur are to consider and dispose of

the said SOPs, or interim applications, without being

influenced, in any manner, by any of the observations in the

present order. Further, they are not bound by any of the

observations in this order.

There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending

miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

12th September, 2023

RJS / JS

RRR,J W.P.Nos.10887 & 10891/2021

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

WRIT PETITION Nos.10887 and 10891 of 2021

12th September, 2023

RJS / JS