Ghouse Mohiuddin Ali vs M/S. Muslim Educational Social ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 4044 Tel

Telangana High Court

Ghouse Mohiuddin Ali vs M/S. Muslim Educational Social ... on 4 October, 2024

     THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
                        AND
      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO

                WRIT APPEAL No.1056 OF 2024

JUDGMENT:

(Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)

Mr. Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel representing

Mr. Mirza Safiulla Baig, learned counsel for the appellants.

Mr. B.Mayur Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing

Mr. Mir Omer Khan, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.

Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned Senior Counsel

representing Mr. K.Chakradhar Reddy, learned counsel for the

respondent No.2, appears through video conferencing.

Mr. Mahesh Raje, learned Government Pleader for Home

appears for respondent Nos.3 to 7.

2. This intra court appeal is directed against the order

dated 19.08.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in

W.P.No.8305 of 2024 by which a writ petition preferred by

respondent Nos.1 and 2 has been disposed of with the

direction to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Mir Chowk

Division, Purani Haveli, Hyderabad as well as Inspector of

Police, P.S., Mir Chowk, Hyderabad to implement the

judgment/order dated 03.01.2024 passed in C.M.A.Nos.119

and 120 of 2023 by the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil

Court, Hyderabad as well as the order dated 12.01.2024

passed in W.P.No.1292 of 2024, orders dated 01.02.2023 and

15.02.2023 passed in O.S.No.1010 of 2022 and O.S.No.1007

of 2022 respectively by the VII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil

Court, Hyderabad and order dated 30.12.2023 passed in

Caveat No.1131 of 2023 by the Chief Judge, City Civil Court,

Hyderabad. In order to appreciate the grievance of the

appellants, relevant facts need mention which are stated infra.

3. M/s.Muslim Education Social and Cultural Association

(hereinafter referred to as 'the Society') is the Society registered

under the Telangana Societies Registration Act, 2001. The

aforesaid Society was founded for social and educational

upliftment of community of Muslims. The Society is engaged in

running educational institutions like schools, colleges,

professional colleges and a diagnostic center and provides

employment to nearly 500 people. One Dr. Mohammed

Iftekharuddin on 19.05.2021 was appointed as Secretary for

Society. The aforesaid Dr. Mohammed Iftekharuddin on

28.12.2021 convened a meeting of the Managing Committee

and replaced existing short term members namely Dr. Kausar

Shaheen, Dr. M.Sahid Ali, Dr. Kaleem Ahmed Jaleeli,

Dr. Nusrath Farees and Dr. Mohammed Moshin with five other

persons for the period from 01.01.2022 to 31.12.2023.

Thereafter, it appears that the aforesaid Dr. Mohammed

Iftekharuddin was placed under suspension on 22.02.2022. In

view of the dispute between the office bearers of the Society,

the Registrar of Societies vide communication dated

02.02.2022 informed the rival factions to approach the

competent Court of law for redressal of their grievance. The

aforesaid letter of the Registrar dated 02.02.2022 was

challenged by Dr. Mohammed Iftekharuddin in W.P.No.9143 of

2022 which was withdrawn.

4. The appellants as well as the other members filed a civil

suit, namely O.S.No.35 of 2022 before the II Additional Chief

Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against Dr. Mohammed

Iftekharuddin and two others to declare the meeting dated

28.12.2001 and the resolutions passed therein dated

28.12.2021 and 19.12.2021 and all subsequent meetings and

resolutions passed by Dr. Mohammed Iftekharuddin and

others as illegal and unauthorised and ab initio void as well as

in violation of the bye-laws of the Society. The appellants and

other members sought perpetual injunction against

Dr. Mohammed Iftekharuddin.

5. One Syed Mohammed Hussain claiming himself to be the

authorised signatory filed the suit for declaration, namely

O.S.No.4545 of 2023 before the IX Junior Civil Judge, City

Civil Court, Hyderabad, in the name of the Society. In the

aforesaid suit, a declaration was sought to declare that the

appellants and others are not the members/employees of the

Society. The interlocutory application, namely I.A.No.1102 of

2023 was filed seeking temporary injunction. The trial Court

granted ad interim injunction on 13.09.2023. The appellants

and others filed interlocutory application, namely I.A.No.1102

of 2023 seeking dismissal of the suit inter alia on the ground

that the trial Court lacks jurisdiction to try the suit as the

dispute amongst the members of the Society has to be dealt

with by the forum under Section 23 of the Telangana Societies

Registration Act, 2001. Thereupon, the trial Court in exercise

of powers under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 (CPC), on 22.11.2023 returned the plaint for

presentation before the proper forum and vacated the ad

interim injunction.

6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 22.11.2023

passed in O.S.No.4545 of 2023, the plaintiffs therein filed

C.M.A.Nos.119 and 120 of 2023 before the II Additional Chief

Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. In the aforesaid Civil

Miscellaneous Appeals, interlocutory applications namely

I.A.No.2016 of 2023 was filed in C.M.A.No.119 of 2023,

whereas I.A.No.2014 of 2023 was filed in C.M.A.No.120 of

2023. The II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court,

Hyderabad by a common order dated 03.01.2024 granted the

injunction. The aforesaid order is extracted below for the

facility of reference:

"Further, I.A.Nos.2014 and 2016 of 2023 are allowed and the respondents/defendants are temporarily restrained from interfering with the decisions, resolutions, instructions, directions, working of staff, labour, Managing Committee, administration, business, management, accounts, funds, affairs in Head-office, branches, colleges,

schools, laboratories, equipment, coaching centres, diagnostic centres by any way disturbing, disrupting, occupying dispossessing the petitioner-Society from the schedule premises, till the disposal of C.M.A.No.119 of 2023 and C.M.A.No.120 of 2023. In the circumstances, no costs."

7. Against the aforesaid order dated 03.01.2024, the

appellants and others filed C.M.A.Nos.84 of 2024 and 79 of

2024 before this Court. The learned Single Judge by an order

dated 14.06.2024 dismissed the aforesaid Civil Miscellaneous

Appeals. However, the Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court,

Hyderabad was directed to dispose of Civil Miscellaneous

Appeals, namely C.M.A.Nos.119 and 120 of 2023 as

expeditiously as possible within a period of one month from

the date of receipt of copy of the judgment.

8. Thereafter, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed an

interlocutory application under Section 151 of CPC seeking

police protection in C.M.A.Nos.119 and 120 of 2023 before the

II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

However, the aforesaid application was returned with an

endorsement "instead of seeking the relief of punishment of

violation, how can the petitioner seek police aid". However, the

respondent Nos.1 and 2 did not re-present the aforesaid

interlocutory application, to file the writ petition, namely

W.P.No.8305 of 2024 seeking a direction to the police to

provide protection for implementation of interim order of

injunction granted in C.M.A.Nos.119 of 120 of 2023. The

learned Single Judge by an order dated 19.08.2024 allowed

the writ petition and directed the respondent Nos.4 and 5,

namely the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Mirchowk

Division, Purani Haveli, Hyderabad and the Inspector of Police,

P.S., Mir Chowk, Hyderabad respectively to implement the

common order dated 03.01.2024. Hence, this appeal.

9. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submits

that merely on the basis of affidavit, without holding any

enquiry, the issue whether or not the order of injunction has

been violated by a party cannot be decided in a summary

proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is

further submitted that the learned Single Judge has not

conducted any enquiry before issuing the impugned order. It is

further submitted that the learned Single Judge passed order

directing police protection or police aid to enforce the order of

injunction, which is not an order contemplated under the law.

The writ petitioners had the remedy either to file an application

under Section 151 of CPC or under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of

CPC. It is contended that the learned Single Judge ought to

have appreciated that the extraordinary discretionary

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is

not exercised if an efficacious alternative remedy is available.

In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the

decisions in Satyanarayana Tiwari vs. Station House Officer,

P.S., Santoshnagar, Hyderabad 1, Polavarapu Nagamani vs.

Parchuri Koteshwara Rao 2, Kabbakula Padma vs. State of

Telangana 3 , Scaria Thomas and Company vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise and ST, Vapi 4 and

Mudraboina Odhelu vs. the State of Telangana 5.

10. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for the

respondent No.1 submitted that the orders passed by Division

1 AIR 1982 AP 394 2 2010 (6) ALT 92 (DB)

2023 (1) ALT 765 4 Manu/CS/0359/2023 5 MANU/TL/0359/2023

Bench of this Court dated 17.10.2022 and 13.02.2023 in

W.A.No.660 of 2022 (Kabbakula Padma (supra) and

Mudraboina Odhelu (supra)) are the orders passed in the

peculiar facts of the case. It is further submitted that this

Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has

jurisdiction to provide for police assistance to ensure

obedience of order of injunction. It is further submitted that

since the properties of Society are situated in different Districts

of the State and therefore, the remedy provided either under

Section 151 or under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC was not

efficacious in the facts and circumstances of the case and

therefore, the unofficial respondents had approached this

Court by filing the writ petition seeking police protection. It is

further submitted that sometime in January, 2024, the

Presiding Officer of the trial Court was transferred and the

post was vacant and therefore, instead of approaching the trial

Court, the respondents approached this Court by filing the

writ petition. It is further submitted that once an interim order

is passed, the same is required to be complied with. It is

further submitted that learned Single Judge has adverted to

various facts and circumstances due to which it has become

necessary to issue a direction for police protection. Our

attention has been invited to paragraphs 15, 19 to 21 of the

order passed by the learned Single Judge. In support of her

submissions, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on

the decisions in Rayapati Audemma vs. Pothineni

Narasimham 6, Satyanarayana Tiwari (supra), S.K.Sharma vs.

Corporation of the City of Bangalore 7, P.R.Muralidharan vs.

Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar 8 , Y.Chandraiah @

Y.Chandra Reddy vs. Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad,

R.R.District, Hyderabad 9, Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited vs.

The Station House Officer, Madhapur P.S., Hyderabad 10 ,

A.Bharathi vs. State of Telangana 11, Mohd. Khaja vs. The

State of Telangana (W.P.M.P.No.16619 of 2016 in

W.P.No.13297 of 2016, dated 20.04.2016), Boina Laxmi vs.

State of Andhra Pradesh 12, Satish Mutually Aided Co-op.

AIR 1971 AP 53

1986 SCC OnLine Kar 216 : ILR 1986 Kar 2536

(2006) 4 SCC 501 : 2006 SCC OnLine SC 296

2006 SCC OnLine AP 1148 : 2007 (1) ALD 730 :2007 (1) ALT 533

2015 SCC OnLine Hyd 285 : 2016 (1) ALD 696 (DB) : 2016 (2) ALT 164 (DB)

2016 SCC OnLine Hyd 490 : 2017 (1) ALT 149 : 2017 (1) ALD 503

2017 SCC OnLine Hyd 809 : 2018 (6) ALT 698 : 2019 (1) ALD 263

Housing Society Limited vs. State of Telangana 13, Kuruma

Vanaja vs. State of Telangana 14 , Thati Narsimha Rao vs.

State of Telangana 15 , Kabbakula Padma vs. State of

Telangana (W.A.No.660 of 2022, dated 17.10.2022),

Mudraboina Odhelu, Gadeela Srinivas Reddy vs. State of

Telangana 16 and Juvvaji Ravinder vs. Jakkula Pushpaleela

(C.R.P.No.3078 of 2023, dated 11.01.2024).

11. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.2

submitted that the issue whether police aid can be granted to

enforce an order of injunction is a question which has to be

decided on case to case basis and if an aspect of public injury

is involved, this Court would issue a direction to police to

enforce the order of injunction. It is further submitted that the

order passed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from

any infirmity warranting interference of this court in this intra

court appeal.

2019 SCC OnLine TS 2783

2021 SCC OnLine TS 607

2022 SCC OnLine TS 2384

2023 SCC OnLine TS 4093

12. We have considered the rival submissions and have

perused the record. A Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh

High Court in Satyanarayana Tiwari (supra) by placing

reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in

Satyanarayan vs. Mallikarjun 17, dealt with the issue whether

in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, an order directing police protection for implementation

of order of injunction can be passed. It was held as under:

"8. In Satyanarayan v. Mallikarjun (AIR 1960 S.C. 137) the Supreme Court reiterated this principle and went a step further that for doing justice between the parties the High Court has absolute jurisdiction to issue such directions and orders as it may deem fit to do justice between the parties and enforce the law of the land. The only limitations on the wide powers conferred on the High Court and exercisable by it in the matter of issuing writs are (1) that the power is to be exercised throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction and (2) that the person or authority to whom the writ is issued, is within the territories over which the respective High Courts exercise jurisdiction. None of these limitations come in the way of the High Court issuing appropriate directions to further secure the right determined and recognised by the Civil Court. The power which a Civil Court has under Sec, 151 C.P.C., the High Court has in much larger measure under Art. 226 of the Constitution. We have, therefore, no hesitation in concluding, that this court

AIR 1960 SC 137

has ample jurisdiction to issue a writ or direction to all the authorities including the police within the State to enforce the orders of the civil Court as confirmed by the High Court in a Civil Revision Petition and maintain the Rule of law. The police authorities are therefore bound to give all assistance to the appellant to enforce and see that the orders of this Court as confirmed in CR P No. 3258/81 are implemented and any enquiry or report of any other authority, revenue or police, cannot be put as an excuse for not rendering the required help to the appellant to maintain his possession. This order will be subject only to the final orders of the Civil Court in OS. 3770 of 80."

13. The Supreme Court in P.R.Muralidharan (supra), while

dealing with scope of a writ for 'police protection', in paragraph

19 held as under:

"19. A writ for "police protection" so-called, has only a limited scope, as, when the court is approached for protection of rights declared by a decree or by an order passed by a civil court. It cannot be extended to cases where rights have not been determined either finally by the civil court or, at least at an interlocutory stage in an unambiguous manner, and then too in furtherance of the decree or order."

14. However, the aforesaid decision of Division Bench of High

Court of Andhra Pradesh in Satyanarayana Tiwari (supra) as

well as the decision of the Supreme Court in

P.R.Muralidharan (supra), was not brought to the notice of

Division Bench which decided W.A.Nos.660 of 2022 and 187 of

2023. From perusal of the orders passed by the aforesaid

Division Bench decisions, it is evident that the ratio of the

aforesaid decisions is that the writ petitions seeking direction

to provide police protection in furtherance of order of

injunction should not ordinarily be entertained unless element

of injury to public or infraction of statute is made out. The

Court while exercising the writ jurisdiction has to ascertain

whether or not it is entering into the arena of private dispute.

Even in the aforesaid orders passed in W.A.Nos.660 of 2022

and 187 of 2023, the Division Benches held that an order for

grant of police protection to implement the order of injunction

can be issued if there is an element of injury to public or

infraction of the statute is made out. Thus, the aforesaid

decisions cannot be said to be an authority for the proposition

that this Court should not order police protection to implement

the order of injunction while exercising power under Article

226 of the Constitution of India.

15. The police authorities are under a legal duty to enforce

public order and a citizen is entitled to seek writs for police

protection in an appropriate case notwithstanding the remedy

available under Section 151 of CPC and Order XXXIX Rule 2A

of CPC. However, we may add that the aforesaid power has to

be exercised cautiously and rarely in an appropriate case to

meet the ends of justice and to uphold the rule of law.

Needless to state that the Court while exercising the aforesaid

power, has to satisfy itself that a prima facie case for violation

of order of injunction is also made out.

16. In the backdrop of the aforesaid legal position, we may

advert to the facts of the case in hand to find out whether, in

the instant case, the learned Single Judge was justified in

exercising the power to order police protection.

17. The Society is registered under the Telangana Societies

Registration Act, 2001. On 02.05.2022, Registrar of Societies

took the details of office bearers on record. One Kauser

Shaheen on 17.05.2022 obtained certificate of the office

bearers of the Managing Committee from the Office of the

Registrar of Societies. Thereafter, the aforesaid Kauser

Shaheen filed a writ petition, namely W.P.No.24046 of 2022, in

which order dated 02.05.2022 of the Registrar of Societies was

under challenge. However, the aforesaid writ petition was

subsequently withdrawn. Thereafter the aforesaid Kauser

Shaheen filed O.P.No.35 of 2022 before the II Additional Chief

Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad challenging the notice

dated 24.12.2021. First Information Report was lodged against

the appellants and others, namely F.I.R.No.512 of 2022 on

30.12.2022 for offences under Sections 403, 406, 420, 468,

471 read with Section 34 of IPC.

18. In O.S.No.1010 of 2022, an order of injunction was

granted in I.A.No.666 of 2022, dated 01.02.2023 in favour of

the Managing committee of the Society. The appellants filed an

application, namely I.A.No.482 of 2022 seeking their

impleadment in the aforesaid civil suit, which was dismissed

on 11.01.2024. On 15.02.2023, an order of injunction was

granted in I.A.No.665 of 2022 in O.S.No.1007 of 2022 in

favour of the Society. The appellants filed application for

impleadment in the aforesaid civil suit as well which was

dismissed on 11.01.2024. Thereafter, the Society filed

O.S.No.4545 of 2023 seeking the relief of declaration and

injunction. In the aforesaid civil suit, the trial Court on

13.09.2023 granted an interim order of injunction. The

appellants thereupon filed an interlocutory application seeking

dismissal of the suit inter alia on the ground that the trial

Court lacks jurisdiction to try the suit as the dispute between

the members of the Society has to be tried in a forum under

Section 23 of the Telangana Societies Registration Act, 2001.

The trial Court thereupon by an order dated 22.11.2023

returned the plaint.

19. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Society filed

C.M.A.Nos.119 and 120 of 2023 before the II Additional Chief

Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. In the aforesaid Civil

Miscellaneous Appeals, interlocutory applications, namely

I.A.No.2016 of 2023 was filed in C.M.A.No.119 of 2023,

whereas I.A.No.2014 of 2023 was filed in C.M.A.No.120 of

2023. The II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court,

Hyderabad by a common order on 03.01.2024 granted interim

order of injunction. Against the aforesaid order dated

03.01.2024, the appellants and others filed C.M.A.Nos.84 and

79 of 2024. The learned Single Judge by an order dated

14.06.2024 dismissed the aforesaid Civil Miscellaneous

Appeals. However, the Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court,

Hyderabad was directed to dispose of C.M.A.Nos.119 and 120

of 2023 as expeditiously as possible within a period of one

month from the date of receipt of the judgment. From the

aforesaid narration of facts, it is evident that the dispute

between the parties has a chequered history.

20. It is pertinent to note that the property of the Society is

situated in more than one district. The Society would have

been required to initiate several proceedings in different

districts. The Society runs schools, colleges, professional

colleges, hospital and a diagnostic center. Therefore, the order

of injunction has to be obeyed by the parties by which they are

bound. Therefore, in case an order of injunction is flouted, the

public, who visit the schools, colleges, hospital and diagnostic

centre run by the Society, may suffer. The learned Single

Judge has recorded cogent reasons in paragraphs 15 and 19 to

21 for granting police aid to enforce the order of injunction. it

is not in dispute that the appellants are bound by the order of

injunction.

21. However, the learned Single Judge has issued a direction

to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Mir Chowk Division,

Purani Haveli, Hyderabad as well as Inspector of Police, P.S.,

Mir Chowk, Hyderabad to implement judgment/orders in

I.A.No.2016 of 2023 in C.M.A.No.119 of 2023 and I.A.No.2014

of 2023 in C.M.A.No.120 of 2023, dated 03.01.2024 on the file

of II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad,

W.P.No.1292 of 2024 dated 12.01.2024, I.A.No.666 of 2022 in

O.S.No.1010 of 2022 dated 01.02.2023, I.A.No.665 of 2022 in

O.S.No.1007 of 2022 dated 15.02.2023 on the file of VII Junior

Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and Caveat No.1131

of 2023 dated 30.12.2023 passed by the Chief Judge, City Civil

Court, Hyderabad.

22. In our opinion, the aforesaid order needs to be modified

to the extent that as and when police aid is required to the

schools, colleges, hospital and diagnostic centre run by the

Society, the same shall be provided by the Assistant

Commissioner of Police, Mir Chowk Division, Purani Haveli,

Hyderabad as well as Inspector of Police, P.S., Mir Chowk,

Hyderabad to implement the orders of injunction and see that

there is no violation of the orders of injunction.

23. To the aforesaid extent, the order passed by the learned

Single Judge is modified.

24. Accordingly, the writ appeal is disposed of. No costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

_______________________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ

_______________________________ J.SREENIVAS RAO, J

04.10.2024 Pln