Munnurukapu Kapu Vidyarthi ... vs The Union Bank Of India
2023 Latest Caselaw 1282 Tel

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 1282 Tel
Judgement Date : 16 March, 2023

Telangana High Court

Munnurukapu Kapu Vidyarthi ... vs The Union Bank Of India on 16 March, 2023

Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, N.Tukaramji

         THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                                       AND
              THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI


                   WRIT APPEAL No.323 of 2023

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)


       Heard Mr. Sunil B.Ganu, learned Senior Counsel for

the appellant and Mr. Sravanth Shankar, learned counsel

for respondent No.2.

2. Appellant as the writ petitioner had filed the related

writ petition assailing the proceedings of respondent No.1 -

Union Bank of India, Badi Chowdi Branch, Hyderabad, in

debit freezing the accounts of Munnurukapu (Kapu)

Vidyarthi Vasathi Gruham Trust Board (briefly, 'the Trust'

hereinafter) with effect from 13.01.2023.

3. It is seen from the materials on record that

Mr. M.R.Venkat Rao, Chairman & Senior Trustee of the

Trust had resigned from the post of the Chairmanship of

the Trust with effect from 15.08.2022 on account of ill-

health and handed over the charge of Chairmanship to

Senior Trustee Akula V.Pandu Ranga Rao. It further

appears that emergent meeting of the Trust was held on

16.08.2022 whereby five trustees out of the total seven

trustees of the Trust resolved to elect respondent No.2 as

the Chairman of the Trust with immediate effect. As

dispute arose between M.R.Venkat Rao and respondent

No.2, ultimately the bank had resolved to debit freezing of

the accounts of the Trust which led to filing of the related

writ petition being W.P.No.2089 of 2023.

4. At the outset, we had put a query to the learned

Senior Counsel for the appellant as to how the writ petition

or the writ appeal is maintainable when the dispute is

purely private within the realm of the Trust and therefore a

civil action would be appropriate, not the writ remedy.

5. Learned Senior Counsel submits that having filed the

writ petition, writ petitioner i.e., appellant has now suffered

adverse order from the writ court.

6. We find that by the order dated 01.03.2023, learned

Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition issued the

following direction:

Keeping the welfare of the Boarders and to protect the noble cause of establishing the Trust, this Court is inclined to issue following directions:-

1. 1st respondent shall permit Mr.Thota Raghunath Rao/2nd respondent herein to operate the bank accounts, the details of the said accounts as specifically mentioned in the letter dated 13.01.2023 of the petitioner Trust.

2. Mr. Thota Raghunath Rao/2nd respondent herein shall continue as Chairman of the petitioner Trust for all purposes.

3. Other Trustees shall cooperate with 2nd respondent in running the affairs of the petitioner Trust effectively.

4. Liberty is granted to Professor M.R.Venkat Rao and Mr.Akula V.Pandu Ranga Rao, to approach competent civil court in terms of Section 34 of the Trust Act, to resolve the internal disputes, if so advised. This order is subject to result of any orders to be passed by the competent civil Court in a petition to be filed under Section 34 of the Trust Act, by professor M.R.Venkat Rao, Mr. Akula V.Pandu Ranga Rao.

5. In view of the nature of the disputes, considering reputation of the Trustees, their age, elders and well

wishers of the petitioner Trust including counsel appeared for Prof.M.R.Venkat Rao and 2nd respondent shall mediate and resolve the disputes between the parties. They shall induce the parties to a settlement by initiating all necessary steps.

6. All the Trustees shall also initiate all necessary steps to resolve the issues among themselves amicably keeping interest of the petitioner Trust and welfare of the Boarders of the petitioner Trust in mind.

7. Trustees shall conduct meetings properly, prepare minutes accordingly by specifically mentioning the resolutions passed. They shall make necessary amendments to the Trust Deed if necessary and get it registered.

7. While learned counsel for respondent No.2

strenuously argued that learned Single Judge was justified

in passing the aforesaid direction, we are of the view that

when the writ petition itself ought not to have been

entertained being a purely private dispute, issuance of

such directions that too adverse to the writ petitioner was

uncalled for. It is well settled that a litigant cannot be

worse off by approaching the court.

8. We accordingly set aside the order dated 01.03.2023

and dismiss W.P.No.2089 of 2023 by giving liberty to the

parties to approach the competent civil court for redressal

of their grievance.