Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 519 (AP)

Tetali Narayana Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2022-05-19

TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

body2022
JUDGMENT Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao, J. - The present Writ Petition is filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief/s: '.. to issue an order or direction or writ, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the action of direct the 2nd respondent to continue the present Executive Committee members until the establishment of new offices and framing new-bye laws in the 26 district and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case'. 2. The Writ Petition is filed seeking to direct the 2nd respondent to continue the present Executive Committee members until the establishment of new offices and framing new-bye laws in the 26 Districts. 3. Heard. 4. It is the specific case of the petitioner herein that the General Body meeting was conducted on 14.05.2018 and the petitioner herein along with other executive body members were elected for 4 years term for the year i.e., 2018-2022 on 14.05.2018 and the term expires on 13.05.2022. The unofficial 4th respondent by using his position, power and influence has misappropriated the funds of the a.P.B.a. association for which he lodged a complaint. The police registered the Crime and filed charge sheet for the offences under Sections.406, 420, 477(a), 120-B r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and the same is pending on the file of the Court of the I additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada vide C.C.No.2825 of 2020. 5. It is the further case of the petitioner that the State of andhra Pradesh was converted into 26 Districts. Unless the Executive Body for the 26 Districts is elected, the unofficial 4th respondent cannot conduct elections to elect the governing body. He also further asserted in the Writ affidavit that O.S.No.75 of 2022 was filed on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada and the Court below was pleased to grant ad-interim Injunction Order dated 13.04.2022 restraining the 2nd respondent, his men, agents and followers from interfering with the peaceful possession of the Office and adjourned the matter to 25.04.2022. 6. It is further submitted that I.a.No.149 of 2022 was also filed and the Court below was pleased to grant Status Quo Order dated 13.04.2022 directing both the petitioner and the 2nd respondent not to conduct the said annual General Body meeting. 7. 6. It is further submitted that I.a.No.149 of 2022 was also filed and the Court below was pleased to grant Status Quo Order dated 13.04.2022 directing both the petitioner and the 2nd respondent not to conduct the said annual General Body meeting. 7. as per the prayer of the Writ affidavit, the Writ Petitioner sought the relief to direct the 2nd respondent-The Registrar of Societies Registration, District Registrar Office to continue the petitioner and the Executive Committee members until the establishment of new office and till framing of new bye-laws in all the 26 Districts. 8. Under Section 7 of the andhra Pradesh Societies Registration act, 2001 (for short, 'the act') the duty of the Registrar is only to register the Society and he is not vested with the power to give directions. When the 2nd respondent is not vested with the power to extend the existing Committee, this Court cannot direct the 2nd respondent to exercise such power which is not vested with the 2nd respondent. 9. On 12.05.2022, learned counsel for the petitioner moved a Lunch Motion before this Court. This Court while permitting Lunch Motion, granted an interim order dated 12.05.2022 directing the respondents not to finalize the elections, pending disposal of the Writ Petition and further directed the learned counsel for the petitioner herein to take notices on the 3rd respondent and the unofficial 4th respondent. 10. On receiving the notices, the unofficial 4th respondent has filed vacate stay petition and moved a House Motion before Hon'ble Dr. Justice K. Manmadha Rao on 16.05.2022 and the Writ Petition was allotted to me. This Court after hearing the matter for some time, adjourned the matter to 17.05.2022 as there was no representation on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 11. On a perusal of the material record and the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, the present Writ Petition is disposed of on hearing learned counsel for the 1st and 4th respondents. 12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents stated that the Writ Petitioner has suppressed many material facts and obtained interim order. Hence, he sought to dismiss the Writ Petition. 13. 12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents stated that the Writ Petitioner has suppressed many material facts and obtained interim order. Hence, he sought to dismiss the Writ Petition. 13. Learned counsel for the vacate petitioners stated that, as per the Clause IV of the circular No.SaaP/aSSN/GL/DSas/2021, dated:27.07.2021, the District Sports and Games association/District Olympic association must have actively existed for more than three years and should affiliate with the concerned State Sports and Games association. 14. as per the circular of SaaP, the Games association/District Olympic association had to be existed for more than three years and should be affiliated with the concerned State Sports and Games association. Even for assumption that the other 13 Districts have been established, still they should be in existence for more than three years and they should be affiliated with the concerned District Sports and Games association. Without following the above said condition that the above 13 Districts association cannot participate in the election of governing body, as per SaaP circular. Hence, the newly established 14 Districts cannot participate in the election. On the said ground, the petitioner cannot agitate to continue the existing body, till the formation of 13 other new Districts. 15. He further stated that the new Districts were not notified by the Central Government. Hence, he prayed to reject the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. On the said ground, the petitioner cannot agitate to continue the existing body, till the formation of 13 other new Districts. 16. Learned counsel for the 4th respondent-vacate petitioners further stated that the unofficial 4th respondent in the Writ Petition was not arrayed as an accused in the charge sheet filed by the police which is numbered as C.C.No.2825 of 2020 on the file of the Court of the I additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. 17. Learned counsel for the respondents stated that as per Section 23 of the act the Writ Petition is not maintainable. The said contention raised by the learned counsel for the vacate petitioners is liable to be rejected as there is no dispute either in between the committee and the members of the society in respect of any matter relating to the affairs of the society. Hence, the said contention is rejected. 18. The said contention raised by the learned counsel for the vacate petitioners is liable to be rejected as there is no dispute either in between the committee and the members of the society in respect of any matter relating to the affairs of the society. Hence, the said contention is rejected. 18. He further stated that already the District Committee has elected their members and the governing body has to be elected by the District Committee. In view of the interim order granted by this Court, the elections were not conducted. He further stated that the petitioner has suppressed the fact that, aggrieved by the interim orders granted by the Court below in both the I.as. in O.S.No.75 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, C.R.P. No.808 of 2022 has been preferred. 19. This Court vide order dated 22.04.2022 in C.R.P.No.808 of 2022 granted interim stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.75 of 2022, on the file of the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, till 30.06.2022. 20. against the said order dated 22.04.2022 in C.R.P.No.808 of 2022, learned counsel for the petitioner approached the Hon'ble apex Court and no interim orders were granted by the Hon'ble apex Court. 21. It is also the further case of the vacate petitioners herein that the Sports authority of the State has not been made as a party and thus, the Writ Petition is not at all maintainable. 22. after enunciating the facts as submitted by the learned counsel for both the parties, this Court came to a conclusion that the Writ Petition itself is not maintainable as this Court cannot give a direction to the 2nd respondent herein to continue the existing legal body, which power is not vested with the 2nd respondent herein. as no power is vested with the 2nd respondent, it does not amount to any dereliction of duty to issue a Writ or give direction under article 226 of the Constitution of India. 23. Moreover, the 2nd respondent, to give a direction, to the Sports authority of andhra Pradesh (SaaP), though such power is not vested with them, the SaaP is not made a party to the Writ Petition. SaaP is the competent authority in relation to the management of the 3rd respondent-association. 23. Moreover, the 2nd respondent, to give a direction, to the Sports authority of andhra Pradesh (SaaP), though such power is not vested with them, the SaaP is not made a party to the Writ Petition. SaaP is the competent authority in relation to the management of the 3rd respondent-association. But the learned counsel for the petitioner has not sought any relief against SaaP and not made SaaP as party to the Writ Petition. 24. The learned counsel for the petitioner also suppressed the material fact of grant of interim stay of the proceedings by this Court vide order dated 22.04.2022 in C.R.P.No.808 of 2022. 25. The present Writ Petition is filed by circumventing the laws to continue the Writ Petitioner as Vice-president and the existing body by abusing the process of law and making attempts by illegal means. 26. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submissions of the learned counsel and on perusing the material on record, this Court is inclined to dismiss the Writ Petition with costs of Rs.2,000/-. 27. accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.2,000/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to pay the costs of Rs.2,000/- to the andhra Pradesh State Legal Services authority with two (2) weeks from today. 28. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.