Telangana High Court

Brilliant Educational Society Of ... vs The Good Samaritan Evangelical ... on 28 April, 2023

Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi

          THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

     CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2464 OF 2022 AND 302 OF
                            2023


COMMON ORDER:

       Since the facts of the case, issue involved in both these Civil

Revision Petitions is one and the same, both these Civil Revision

Petitions are taken up together and are being dispose of by way of

this common order.


2.     C.R.P.No.2464 of 2022 is filed by the petitioners, under Article

227 of the Constitution of India, seeking to set aside the order, dated

02.11.2022 passed in I.A.No.2 of 2022 in O.OP No.1 of 2022 by the

learned Principal District Judge, Kothagudem, whereby, the subject

application No.2 of 2022 was allowed granting ad interim order

restraining the Respondent Nos.2 to 10 therein from conducting any

meeting, or passing any resolutions or meddling with the Bye-laws of

M/s. Brilliant Educational Society of Technology at Sarapaka by way

of any amendment or dealing with the fiscal assets and properties of

the society and its affiliates in any manner, pending disposal of the

subject O.OP No.1 of 2022.

3. C.R.P.No.302 of 2023 is filed by the petitioners under Article

227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order, dated

07.12.2022 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in O.OP No.2 of 2022 by the 2 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi CRP Nos.2464 of 2022&302 of 2023

Principal District Judge, Bhadradri Kothagudem whereby, ad interim

order is granted by suspending the operation and enforcement of the

amendment to Rule 3(1) of the Bye-laws of Respondent No.1 society

therein, covered by resolution, dated 16.09.2022 and to maintain

status quo of the Bye-laws of Respondent No.1 society existing as

prior to 16.09.2022, till further orders.

4. I have heard the submissions of Sri D.V.Seetharama Murthy,

learned Senior Counsel appearing for Vankina Allu and Partners,

learned counsel for the petitioners in both these Civil Revision

Petitions, Sri Junaid Ali Qureshi, learned counsel representing Sri

Kadaru Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the Respondents in both

these Civil Revision Petitions and perused the record.

5. For convenience and clarity, the parties are hereinafter referred

to as per their array in C.R.P.No.302 of 2023.

6. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in both

these Civil Revision Petitions would submit that the petitioner No.1

society was established in the year 1997 by Dr.Satish Paul Raj at

Sarapaka, Bhadradri Kothagudem district. The society was

established to set up educational institutions to serve the general

public irrespective of caste, community, religion, etc. and the society

intended to promote academic educational institutions and to bring 3 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi CRP Nos.2464 of 2022&302 of 2023

the technical education to rural India. In the year 1997, Dr. Paul Raj

Engineering College was established at Bhadrachalam to impart

technical education to the students in the agency area and thus

contribute for development of downtrodden. Dr. Paul Raj

Engineering College has excellent infrastructural facilities set up as a

very first engineering college in the private sector in the erstwhile

Khammam district of United Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner No.1

society has dedicated faculty and student centric administration. Its

mission is to motivate and educate students from all parts of both

Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, including those from local and rural

areas. The petitioner No.1 society has completed 25 years and it has

become a torch bearer for upliftment of the tribal people and

educating them in scientific realm. The Respondent No.1 is a

member of petitioner No.1 society and she is also the president of

the Good Samaritan Evangelical Church. The Respondent No.1 filed

O.OP No.2 of 2022 in collusion with the Good Samaritan Evangelical

Church, with ill motives. The Respondent No.1 was the erstwhile

president of the petitioner No.1 Society and she has resigned the

post of Chairman on 08.10.2021 and handed over the post to

petitioner No.2 with all responsibilities and ancillary powers

associated with the office. The Respondent No.1 filed O.OP No.2 of

2022 on 06.12.2022 before the Court below to declare the petitioner

No.2 and Respondent Nos.2 to 6 as ineligible members of the society 4 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi CRP Nos.2464 of 2022&302 of 2023

and they are not entitled to participate in the meeting of the society

and to vote for passing any resolution and also to declare that the

special resolution, dated 16.09.2022 whereby Rule 3(1) of the

byelaws of the society was amended, as illegal, invalid, malafide and

unenforceable under law. In the said O.OP No.2 of 2022, the

Respondent No.1 filed I.A.No.1 of 2022 to suspend the operation and

enforcement of the amended Rule 3(1) of the byelaws of the society,

covered by the special resolution, dated 16.09.2022, till the disposal

of the main O.OP No.2 of 2022. The Court below, granted ad interim

order suspending the operation and enforcement of the amendment

to Rule 3(a) of the byelaws of Respondent No.1 society, covered by

the resolution, dated 16.09.2022 and to maintain status quo of the

byelaws of Respondent No.1 society, existing as prior to 16.09.2022,

till further orders. The impugned order of the Court below is contrary

to law and is in divergence of the established procedure. The Court

below has passed an exparte ad interim order without considering

the fact that Respondent No.1 suppressed the fact that she has been

elected as the president of the Good Samaritan Evangelical Church

and filed O.OP No.1 of 2022 against the petitioners and respondents

questioning the membership rights and when the petitioners raised a

question about the locus standi by filing the counter in the said OP,

purely to circumvent this obstacle, O.OP No.2 of 2022 was filed and

exparte ad interim order was obtained by suppressing the fact that 5 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi CRP Nos.2464 of 2022&302 of 2023

she is not only the member of petitioner No.1 but she is also the

president of the Good Samaritan Evangelical Church. The

Respondent No.1 has also suppressed the fact that she chaired a

meeting, dated 08.10.2021, wherein the motion to elect petitioner

No.2 as a new chairman was moved and she was unanimously

elected as a new chairman of petitioner No.1 society. The

Respondent No.1 also suppressed the fact that she has resigned post

of chairman of petitioner No.1 society on her own accord vide

resignation letter, dated 08.10.2021. Suppressing all these facts,

the Respondent No.1, in collusion with the Good Samaritan

Evangelical Church, obtained an exparte ad interim order, with a

malafide intention. The Court below, inspite of having knowledge of

the previous round of litigation, passed ad interim order with haste,

without appreciating the balance of convenience or irreparable loss to

be caused to petitioner No.1 society. The Court below also failed to

appreciate the fact that the petitioners did not mention regarding the

resolution, dated 16.09.2022 and the amended Rule 3(a) of the

byelaws of petitioner No.1 society in O.OP No.1 of 2022 only for the

reason that the petitioners are not required to provide information

regarding society's personal meetings to the Good Samaritan

Evangelical Church, who are rank outsiders. The Court below

exceeded its power and committed an error by suspending the

operation and enforcement of the amendment to Rule 3(a) of the 6 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi CRP Nos.2464 of 2022&302 of 2023

byelaws of petitioner No.1 society. The Court below had given a

complete go bye to the cardinal principle that ad interim injunction

can only be granted in appropriate cases where an applicant is at

serious risk of injury or loss and when there is a strong prima facie

case and balance of convenience in favour of the persons seeking the

relief of injunction and more particularly the person seeking the same

as a right. The Court below usurped the supervisory power of a

society with no basis and also blatantly failed to appreciate the

principle of law that there is no vested right for any individual under

the constitutional scheme of the counter to be restrictive of religion,

creed, sex or any other discriminatory factor. The Court below did

not appreciate the established principle of law that any ad interim

order in urgent and emergency situations can be passed only for a

limited period and a blank order cannot be passed with no time limit.

Contending so, the learned senior counsel requested this Court, to

set aside the impugned order, dated 06.12.2022 passed in I.A.No.1

of 2022 in O.OP No.2 of 2022 and remit the matter to the Court

below for disposal of the subject I.A.No.1 of 2022 in O.OP No.2 of

2022 afresh, after affording an opportunity of hearing both sides and

adduce documentary evidence, if any.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the

Respondents in both these Civil Revision Petitions would submit that 7 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi CRP Nos.2464 of 2022&302 of 2023

the Respondent No.1 is one of the founding members and the life

member of M/s. Brilliant Educational Society of Technology at

Sarapaka. Dr. S.Paul Raj was its one of the founders and the life

chairman. He died of liver cancer in the year 2011. As per Rule 3(1)

of the bye laws of the society, its membership is allowed only for the

persons belonging to Christian Community, whereas, the petitioner

No.2 namely Smt.V. Vara Lakshmi, her mother and her son

admittedly belongs to Hindu community. By reason of the clog

contained in Rule 3(a) of the bye laws, they are not entitled to be

members of the society and to hold any post as its office bearers.

Petitioner No.2, not being a Christian by community, but having

taken over the reigns of M/s. Brilliant Educational Society of

Technology, have been ruining the society. Consequently, the Good

Samaritan Evangelical Church, Bhadrachalam, through its president,

had filed O.OP No.1 of 2022 on the file of the Court below seeking

declaration that in view of the clog contained in Rule 3 (a) of the

byelaws, the petitioner No.2, her mother and son are not entitled to

be the members of the Society and to hold any post as its office

bearers and for conduct of elections and to handover management of

the society to such an elected body, as per its bye laws. O.OP No.1

of 2022, having been taken on file on 01.07.2022, notices were

issued for appearance on 13.09.2022. The petitioner No.2, her

mother and son had made appearance and had got the case posted 8 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi CRP Nos.2464 of 2022&302 of 2023

for their counter on 12.10.2022. While the mater stood thus, the

petitioner in O.OP No.1 of 2022, having come to know that efforts

were being made to amend the byelaws of the Society, filed a

petition in I.A.No.2 of 2022 on 12.10.2022 for interim injunction to

restrain from making any amendment to the bye laws and meddling

with the fiscal assets of the society, during the pendency of the case.

Upon hearing both sides, the Court below allowed I.A.No.2 of 2022

restraining from amending the bye laws and also not to meddle with

the fiscal assets of the society. Against the said order, the petitioner

had filed C.R.P.No.2464 of 2022 before this Court and obtained stay

on 07.11.2022 on the ground that the order as to dealing with the

fiscal assets will hamper its functioning. On 21.11.2022, the

petitioner No.2, her mother and son filed counter stating that on

16.09.2022 itself, there was an amendment to Rule 3 (a) of the

byelaws and that the clog contained therein restricting its

membership only for Christians was scrapped. This fact as to the

amendment, dated 16.09.2022 was neither brought to the notice of

the Court below in their counter in I.A.No.2 of 2022, nor during the

course of arguments. Such clandestine amendment, dated

16.09.2022, which was resorted to during the pendency of I.A.No.1

of 2022 was suppressed by them. The petitioner No.2, her mother

and son, not being Christians are not entitled to be members of the

society or to hold any post as its office bearers and as such, O.OP 9 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi CRP Nos.2464 of 2022&302 of 2023

No.1 of 2022 was filed seeking such declaration. Therefore, the

intent behind making clandestine amendment to Rule 3(a) was to

remove the clog contained therein and to gain entry into the society

by the petitioner No.1, her mother and son through back door.

During the pendency of O.OP No.1 of 2022, the clandestine

amendment of Rule 3(a) of the byelaws, since intended to frustrate

the very object of creating the clog and since the amendment is

being apparently malafide, arbitrary and illegal, O.OP NO.2 of 2022

was filed. In the said O.OP No.2 of 2022, the Respondent No.1 filed

I.A.No.1 of 2022 for ad interim suspension of the enforcement of

amended Rule 3 (a) of the bye laws and to maintain status quo ante

prevailing prior to 16.09.2022, as regards Rule 3 (a) of the bye laws.

The Court below, having satisfied that there is prima facie case and

balance of convenience in favour of the Respondent No.1, granted ad

interim order on 07.12.2022 till further orders and directed for

issuance of urgent notices to the respondents therein for their

appearance on 16.12.2022 and to file their counter. Pursuant to the

said notice on 16.12.2022, the petitioner No.2, her mother and son

entered appearance in O.OP No.2 of 2022 and had taken time to file

counter till 29.12.2022. While the matter stood thus, the petitioner

No.2 had filed Transfer C.M.P.No.3 of 2023 before this Court for

transfer of O.OP No.1 of 2022 and also filed Transfer C.M.P.No.2 of

2023 for transfer of O.OP No.2 of 2022 from the file of District Judge 10 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi CRP Nos.2464 of 2022&302 of 2023

at Kothagudem to the file of District Judge at Khammam. However,

in Transfer C.M.P.No.2 of 2023, this Court declined to grant stay

while calling for the report of the District Judge at Kothagudem.

Thus it is clear that this Civil Revision Petition (C.R.P.No.302 of 2023)

is yet another futile exercise to conceal the evil designs of resorting

to discreet amendment of Rule 3 (a) of the byelaws. Without filing

counter in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in O.OP No.2 of 2022, without disposal of

the said petition on merits, filing Civil Revision Petition under Article

227 of the Constitution of India tantamount to abuse of process of

Court. Without placing the pleadings on record before the trial Court,

the petitioner No.2 cannot seek indulgence of this Court for exercise

of its extraordinary supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India. In view of the clog contained in Rule 3(a) of the

existing bye laws of the Society, the petitioner No.2, her mother and

son are not entitled to be the members of the Society to claim that

they are the validly elected office bearers. Knowing very well the

consequences in O.OP No.1 of 2022, to circumvent the fact that they

had dubiously resorted to discreet amendment of Rule 3 (a) of the

bye laws by way of alleged resolution, dated 16.09.2022, such

amendment, on the very face of it cannot be held to be valid. The

fraudulent act of discreet amendment of Rule 3(a) of the bye laws

and suppressing the said fact and misleading the Court has been

brought to the fore in O.OP No.2 of 2022. The grounds which are 11 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi CRP Nos.2464 of 2022&302 of 2023

taken in this C.R.P.No.302 of 2023 as against the order in I.A.No.1 of

2022 in O.OP No.2 of 2022 are the same grounds mentioned in

Transfer Petition No.2 of 2023 and in that regard, the petitioner No.2

had invited the observations by this Court which heard the transfer

petitions on 25.01.2023 and posted to 27.02.2023. Having

suppressed the factum of filing of transfer petitions, the petitioners

herein filed Civil Revision Petitions on flimsy grounds, which, on the

very face of it, is not maintainable under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India. The Court below, in order to protect the aims

and objectives of Respondent No.1 society and also in the interest of

justice, rightly granted ad interim order, suspending the operation

and enforcement of the amendment to Rule 3(a) of the bye laws

covered by resolution, dated 16.09.2022 and to maintain status quo

of the bye laws of Respondent No.1 society existing as prior to

16.09.2022, till further orders. The contentions raised on behalf of

the petitioners are untenable and ultimately prayed to dismiss both

the Civil Revision Petitions.

8. Refuting the contentions of the learned counsel for the

respondents, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners

would submit that vide letter, dated 08.10.2021 addressed by the

Respondent No.1 to the governing body members of Brilliant

Educational Society of Technology, the Respondent No.1 tendered 12 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi CRP Nos.2464 of 2022&302 of 2023

her resignation for the post of Chairman of the Society and

transferred the responsibilities and ancillary powers associated with

the office of Chairman to the new Chairman to be elected in the

Annual General Body Meeting. Pursuant to the same, on the same

day i.e. on 08.10.2021, in the Annual General Body Meeting, the

petitioner No.2 was elected as a chairman of the society with

immediate effect. Subsequently, on 16.09.2022, a resolution

amending clause 3 (a) of the bye laws was passed, whereby, the

membership of the Society can be obtained by anyone who are

interested in the aims and objects of the society, who is an Indian

citizen with atleast 21 years of age on the date of admission.

Suppressing the fact that the Respondent No.1 resigned to the post

of Chairman of the Society, she filed the subject I.A.No.1 of 2022 in

O. OP No.2 of 2022 seeking suspension of operation and enforcement

of the amended Rule 3(a) of the byelaws covered by the special

resolution, dated 16.09.2022 and the Court below, without affording

an opportunity of hearing to the other side, straight away granted ad

interim orders by suspending the operation and enforcement of the

amendment to the Rule 3(a) of the bye laws. Therefore it is clear

that the Respondent No.1 is guilty of approaching the Court with

unclean hands. It is settled law that a person invoking discretionary

jurisdiction of the Court cannot be allowed to approach it with a pair

of unclean hands and an injunction, being an equitable relief, cannot 13 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi CRP Nos.2464 of 2022&302 of 2023

be granted in favour of a person who is guilty of suppressing material

facts. In support of his contentions the learned senior counsel had

relied on a judgment of this Court in Rt Rev Dr. Prof. K. Reuben

mark Vs. E. Prabhu Kumar and Others1.

9. Before proceeding further, it is apt to state that in the year

1997, Dr. Satish Paul Raj established Brilliant Educational Society of

Technology to serve the general public irrespective of caste,

community, religion, etc. The aims and objectives of the society at

the time of establishment was to establish technical, medical and

academic institutions and to bring technical education to rural India

and also to promote women to face challenges and participate in

rebuilding of the nation.

10. Rule 3(i) of the initial byelaws framed by the society reads as

follows:

3. (i) Membership: Can be obtained by any one, who is a citizen of India, and above 21 years of and abide with the spirit of the Constitution.

(ii) Category of Membership is General

(iii) Admission fee and monthly subscription: Admission fee Rs.1,000/-

and monthly subscription Rs.500/-.

11. On 23.08.1997, resolutions were passed to amend the aims

and objectives and byelaws of the society and accordingly,

amendments were made. The amended aims and objectives of the

2023 SCC OnLine TS 583 14 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi CRP Nos.2464 of 2022&302 of 2023

society was to establish educational institutions to serve the Christian

community, particularly a Christian converted from Scheduled Caste

and Scheduled Tribe and to bring technical education to the rural

Christian of India. Rule 3 i.e. byelaw with respect to the membership

was also amended, which reads thus:

3. (a) Membership: Can be obtained by anyone who belongs to Christian Minority specially belonging to Scheduled caste & Scheduled tribe communities who is above 21 years and in agreement with the spirit of the Constitution.

      (b)    Category of Membership is General

      (c)    Admission fee and monthly subscription: Admission fee Rs.1,000/-
             and monthly subscription Rs.50/-

      (d)    In case of the foreign national, there shall be unanimous resolution

at a Special governing body meeting specifically called for the purposes to admit the foreign nationals.

(e) Any one who pays Rs.250 per annum and above 21 years of age is eligible to be an ordinary member of the society with voice only.

12. In the same year, Dr. Paul Raj Engineering College was

established by the society in Bhadrachalam to impart technical

education to the students in the agency area and thus contribute for

the development of the down trodden. In the year 1999, the said

Engineering College was accorded permanent Christian minority

status from the academic year 1999. On 06.11.2003, resolutions

were passed to amend the byelaws and the aims and objectives of

the society once again and the same was sent to the Registrar of

Societies. However, the membership clause remained unaltered

members belonging to a Hindu religion continued to be the members

of the Respondent society and were also part of the governing body.

                                      15                       Justice Juvvadi Sridevi
                                                            CRP Nos.2464 of 2022&302
                                                                      of 2023

Membership to the people other than Christians was given in view of

the aims and objectives of the society. On 02.05.2011, while

Respondent No.1 was the Chairman of the society, the petitioner

No.2 was given membership and she was inducted into temporary

governing body of the society. The amending committee of the

society, in tune with the aims and objectives of the society, passed a

resolution on 10.06.2011 to withdraw the minority status accorded to

the college and accordingly, the authority concerned issued a memo,

dated 25.08.2011, cancelling the Christian religions minority status

granted to the engineering college. While so, on 08.10.2021, the

Respondent No.1 tendered resignation to the post of Chairman of the

society but continued to be a member of the society. On the same

day, Annual General Body meeting was conducted, presided over by

the Respondent No.1, wherein, the petitioner No.2 was unanimously

elected as the Chairman of the society. On 03.09.2022, Respondent

No.4 issued a notice calling for extraordinary general body meeting

on 16.09.2022 to discuss the rules and regulations existing then and

proposed amendments to the bye laws. On 16.09.2022, a special

resolution was passed amending Rule 3 (a) of the bye laws, which

reads as follows:

3. (a) Membership : Can be obtained by anyone who is interested in the aims and objects of the Society, who is an Indian Citizen with atleast 21 years of age on the date of admission and in agreement with the spirit of the Constitution.

            (b)    Category of Membership is General
                                    16                        Justice Juvvadi Sridevi
                                                           CRP Nos.2464 of 2022&302
                                                                     of 2023

(c) Admission fee and monthly subscription: Admission fee Rs.1,000/- and monthly subscription Rs.50/-

(d) Incase of the foreign national, there shall be unanimous resolution at a Special called for the purposes to admit the foreign nationals.

(e) Any one who pays Rs.250 per annum and above 21 years of age is eligible to be an ordinary member of the society with voice only

13. As the matter stood thus, on 02.11.2022, the Good Samaritan

Evangelical Church filed O.OP No.1 of 2022 seeking a declaration that

the petitioner herein and others are not entitled to be the members

of the society and an interim injunction order was passed directing

the petitioner and other respondents not to conduct any meeting or

pass any resolution or meddle with the byelaws and not to deal with

the fiscal assets and properties of the Society. Challenging the said

order, the petitioner filed C.R.P.No.2464 of 2022 before this Court on

27.11.2022 and this Court granted interim suspension on 02.11.2022

observing that the Good Samaritan Evangelical Church does not have

locus standi to file the O.P. On 02.12.2022, the Good Samaritan

Evangelical Church filed a counter in C.R.P.No.2464 of 2022 stating

that Respondent No.1 was elected as President of the Executive

Committee of the church and as such, they have locus standi to

maintain the O.P. On 05.12.2022, O.OP No.2 of 2022 was filed by

the Respondent No.1 to declare that the petitioner and other

respondents are not members of the Respondent society and that

they are not entitled to participate in the meeting of the society or

vote for passing any resolution. Respondent No.1 also sought 17 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi CRP Nos.2464 of 2022&302 of 2023

declaration that the special resolution passed on 16.09.2022

amending Rule 3 (a) of the byelaws as illegal, invalid and

unenforceable under law. The Court below, vide impugned order,

dated 06.12.2022, granted ad interim order suspending the

operation and enforcement of the amendment Rule 3(a) of the bye

laws and to maintain status quo with regard to the bye laws, until

further orders. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed

C.R.P.No.302 of 2023 against Respondent No.1 (Kalvakuri Radha

Manjari) and also filed C.R.P.No.2464 of 2022 against the Good

Samaritan Evangelical Church represented by its President Rev.

P.Johnson, who was arrayed as Respondent No.2 therein.

14. While it is the case of the petitioner No.2 that the

Respondent No.1 obtained the impugned ad interim order by

suppressing the fact that Respondent No.1 resigned from the post of

Chairman of the Society and thereafter the petitioner No.2 was

elected as chairman, it is the case of the Respondent No.1 that

Respondent Nos.2 to 4 are not the valid members of the society, but

having managed the passing of the so called special resolution, dated

16.09.2022 and got amended Rule 3 (a) of the byelaws clandestinely

and illegally, trying to intrude into the society. Several contentious

issues are involved in both the O.OP No.1 of 2022 and 2 of 2022,

which are required to be adverted to by the Court below at the time 18 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi CRP Nos.2464 of 2022&302 of 2023

of final determination of the said OPs. Admittedly, the order

impugned in C.R.P.No.302 of 2023 is an exparte order, passed

without affording opportunity of hearing to the other side. The

questions of facts and law involved in the subject OPs cannot be

adverted to in this Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of

the Constitution of India. There can be no dispute with regard to law

laid down by this Court in Rt Rev Dr. Prof. K. Reuben mark Vs. E.

Prabhu Kumar and Others's case (1 supra), wherein, it was held

that a person invoking the discretionary jurisdiction of the Court

cannot be allowed to approach it with a pair of unclean hands and

that the applicant must state fully and fairly the facts, and the

penalty by which the Court enforce that obligation is that if it finds

out that the facts have not been fully and fairly stated to it, the Court

will set aside any action which it has taken on the faith of the

imperfect statement. There can also be no dispute with regard to

the contention of the learned senior counsel appearing for the

petitioners that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of

justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted

hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final.

15. Be that as it is, admittedly the order impugned in

C.R.P.No.302 of 2023 is an exparte order passed without affording

opportunity of hearing to the other side. The Court below in the 19 Justice Juvvadi Sridevi CRP Nos.2464 of 2022&302 of 2023

impugned order, recorded a finding that even if a resolution, dated

16.09.2022 is taken place for argument sake, without amendment of

Rule 3 (a) of the bye laws of the Society, the question of becoming a

member by a person other than the Scheduled caste and Schedule

tribe does not arise and apparently it is a genuine doubt as to how

and under what capacity the Respondent Nos.2 to 4, 6 and 7 have

participated and signed in the resolution, dated 16.09.2022.

However, it appears that the resignation tendered by Respondent

No.1 to the post of Chairman of the society was not brought to the

notice of the Court below on 08.10.2021 while passing the impugned

order. Had the said issue been brought to the notice of the Court

below while passing impugned order, the situation would have been

otherwise. In view of the contentions raised before this Court and

the material placed on record, this Court is of the considered opinion

that if the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to

the Court below for disposal of the subject I.A.No.1 of 2022 in O.OP

No.2 of 2022 and also I.A.No.2 of 2022 in O.OP No.1 of 2022, afresh

after affording opportunity of hearing to both sides and adduce

documentary evidence, if any, the said course, would sub-serve the

ends of justice. Further, no prejudice would be caused to the

Respondent No.1 herein if the subject applications are decided on

merits after adverting to the contentions raised and the material

placed on record before the Court below by both sides.

                                     20                       Justice Juvvadi Sridevi
                                                           CRP Nos.2464 of 2022&302
                                                                     of 2023

16. Under these circumstances, C.R.P.Nos.2464 of 2022 and

302 of 2023 are allowed by setting aside the orders impugned

therein. The matter is remitted to the Court below with a direction to

the Court below to dispose of the subject I.A.No.1 of 2022 in O.OP

No.2 of 2022 and I.A.No.2 of 2022 in O.OP No.1 of 2022 afresh, after

affording opportunity of hearing and adducing documentary

evidence, if any, to both the sides, in accordance with law, within a

period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this common

order. Both the parties as well as their respective counsel shall co-

operate with the Court below for disposal of the subject I.A.No.1 of

2022 in O.OP No.2 of 2022 and I.A.No.2 of 2022 in O.OP No.1 of

2022 within the time stipulated above.