ORDER : NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J. Petitioners state that the Church of South India Trust Association (CSITA) is a Religious Charitable Trust registered on 26.09.1947 under Section 26 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913, now governed by the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013. CSITA was registered with the Registrar of Companies under the Ministry of Company Affairs, Government of India, and continues to function under a valid license issued by the Government of Madras dated 25.09.1947. The Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association of CSITA, duly approved by the Registrar of Companies, remain in force, un-amended and unmodified, and constitute the supreme governing instruments regulating the administration, properties, finances and affairs of CSITA. 1.1. Petitioners contend that the CSITA is the sole and absolute owner of all properties transferred by missionary bodies, including the Methodist Missionary Trust Association (MMTA) which purchased and acquired extensive lands and properties across India and established churches, schools, colleges, hospitals, hostels, skill development centers and rehabilitation centers for educational, medical and charitable purposes. Upon the missionaries leaving India after Independence, all such properties were transferred in favour of CSITA in 1963; consequently, CSITA became the sole owner of the said properties spread across southern India, and their administration, management and finances vest exclusively in the Committee of Management constituted under the MoA and AoA of CSITA. 1.2. It is further stated, CSITA is geographically and administratively divided into 24 ecclesiastical districts known as dioceses for the purpose of administrative efficiency. The Medak Diocese is one such unit of CSITA, having jurisdiction over the districts of Hyderabad, Secunderabad, Medchal-Malkajgiri, Rangareddy, Sangareddy, Medak, Kamareddy, Siddipet, Nizamabad, Nirmal, Mancherial, Komaram Bheem Asifabad and Adilabad in the State of Telangana, with its administrative office situated at Secunderabad. According to Petitioners, each diocese functions through a Diocesan Council elected once in three years (Triennium), which is the final authority for internal administration of the diocese. The Bishop of the diocese is stated to be an employee of CSITA entrusted only with episcopal, ecclesiastical and ministerial functions. Administrative control is vested in the elected Diocesan Lay Secretary, Diocesan Treasurer and the Diocesan Executive Committee, who are responsible for governance, finance and administration of the diocese. 1.3. The Bishop of the diocese is stated to be an employee of CSITA entrusted only with episcopal, ecclesiastical and ministerial functions. Administrative control is vested in the elected Diocesan Lay Secretary, Diocesan Treasurer and the Diocesan Executive Committee, who are responsible for governance, finance and administration of the diocese. 1.3. It is asserted, the Church of South India (CSI) is merely the ecclesiastical department of CSITA and is governed by an unregistered Constitution of CSI, which, according to Petitioners, has no statutory force and cannot override MoA and AoA of CSITA. The constitution of CSI was unilaterally drafted by a group of employees, namely bishops and clergymen, and that such employees are neither trustees nor owners of CSITA properties. Bishops, presbyters and pastors are employees appointed only to implement the policies and directions of the CSITA Committee of Management and have no independent authority to frame policy, administer trust properties or control electoral processes contrary to the governing documents. 1.4. Petitioners state that eligibility to be a member of the Church with voting rights and eligibility to participate in church administration is strictly governed by the Constitution of CSI and MoA and AoA of CSITA. It is asserted that every eligible member must be a baptised, adult communicant, professing, practising and witnessing Christian faith throughout life, must contribute funds as freewill offering for a minimum of three consecutive years, and must not belong to or profess any other religion. Such members alone are entitled to be included in church rolls, electoral rolls and to participate in the governance of the church. It is specifically contended that persons recorded in educational, employment and government records as belonging to religions other than Christianity, including Hindus and Muslims, are ineligible to be members with voting rights or to participate in church administration. Petitioners define such persons as "Non-Christians" for the purpose of Writ Petition, including Scheduled Caste members and Backward Class groups recorded as Hindus in government records. 1.5. Petitioners allege that in blatant violation of these mandatory requirements, a substantial number of non- Christian members, including Scheduled Caste persons recorded as Hindus and other Backward Class members, were illegally included in church electoral rolls, permitted to contest elections and were elected to various posts at the Pastorate level, District Church Council level and Medak Diocesan Council level during the Triennium 2022-25. Nearly 60% of the voters in the said elections were ineligible non-Christians. Petitioners rely upon the Presidential Order of 1950, asserting that Scheduled Caste persons who convert to Christianity lose their SC status and are reclassified as BC-C, thereby disentitling them to SC benefits. Reliance is also placed on the common order dated 02.01.2020 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissing Writ Petitions No. 17759 and 18281 of 2019 wherein participation of non-Christians in church administration was sought, holding such participation to be impermissible. 1.6. It is alleged that despite repeated representations, the church authorities deliberately excluded eligible Christian members and included ineligible non-Christian members in voter lists, suspended eligible members and manipulated elections. Specific instances are cited with respect to CSI St. Luke's Church, Khairatabad, Hyderabad, where 11 true Christian families were removed from church rolls and voter lists by the Presbyter In-charge Rev. Katta Manikya Rao, elections were not conducted, and five non-Christians were included through Bishop Commission. It is further stated that five true Christian members were suspended pursuant to disciplinary proceedings following a meeting held at Medak on 29-30 December 2022. 1.7. Similar allegations are made in respect of CSI St. Mark's Church, Mettuguda, Hyderabad, where eight elected true Christian members were allegedly prevented from participating in church administration, while non-Christians were included through Bishop Commission by the Presbyter In-charge Rev. D. John Jonathan and permitted to participate in elections and nominated as delegates to the Medak Diocesan Council. Petitioners further allege misuse of church funds, illegal alienation of CSITA trust properties, threats to Christian believers, and continuation of dual religious identity by non- Christian members who allegedly retain Scheduled Caste status and benefits in government records while simultaneously holding influential positions in church administration. 1.8. Reference is made to the circular dated 07.02.2025 issued by the Ministerial Secretary Rev. M. Jayanand and the Lay Secretary Mr. G. Prabhu Kiran of Medak Diocese, directing streamlining of church rolls and electoral rolls for the Pastorate Elections for the Triennium 2025-28 and the proposed 38 th Ordinary Session of the Medak Diocesan Council. The Petitioners contend that the said circular was not implemented in several churches and valid voter lists from 2023 to 2025 were not publicly published. G. Prabhu Kiran of Medak Diocese, directing streamlining of church rolls and electoral rolls for the Pastorate Elections for the Triennium 2025-28 and the proposed 38 th Ordinary Session of the Medak Diocesan Council. The Petitioners contend that the said circular was not implemented in several churches and valid voter lists from 2023 to 2025 were not publicly published. Petitioners also rely upon interim orders passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition No.20347 of 2024 dated 13.09.2024 and Writ Petition No.25674 of 2025 dated 24.09.2025, wherein diocesan council meetings and elections were stayed on similar grounds involving inclusion of non-Christians in church administration. 1.9. It is contended that despite issuance of the letter dated 08.11.2025 proposing conduct of the 38 th Ordinary Session of the Medak Diocesan Council elections scheduled on 27.11.2025, the grievances raised by Petitioners remain unaddressed. Petitioners assert that inaction of respondents has resulted in dilution of the constitutional rights of religious minorities to administer and protect their institutions, compelling them to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. No counter affidavit has been filed by any of the respondents despite service of notice. 3. Heard Sri J. Prabhakar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Y. Soma Srinath Reddy, learned counsel for petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in on maintainability. 4. The main grievance of Petitioners is with respect to the alleged inaction of respondents in addressing complaints relating to preparation of church rolls and electoral rolls, inclusion of ineligible persons, exclusion of eligible members, and the conduct of elections at various levels within the Medak Diocese, including the proposed conduct of the 38 th Ordinary Session of the Medak Diocesan Council for the Triennium 2025- 28. 5. From the material on record, it is evident that Petitioners' case rests substantially on their interpretation of the Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association of the Church of South India Trust Association, Constitution of the Church of South India, the eligibility criteria for membership and voting rights, and the alleged violation thereof by inclusion of certain persons said to be ineligible and exclusion of persons claimed to be eligible. It is not in dispute that CSITA is a registered entity governed by its Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association framed under the Companies Act, and that dioceses function as constituent units of the said Trust. It is also not disputed that administration of dioceses and conduct of elections are regulated by the internal governing framework of the Trust and its ecclesiastical structure. However, the allegations raised by Petitioners necessarily involve adjudication of serious and complex disputed questions of fact. These include determination of the religious status of individuals, verification of baptismal and communicant status, examination of contribution records, scrutiny of church rolls and electoral rolls, evaluation of the manner in which elections were conducted at different levels, and assessment of allegations of manipulation, exclusion, inclusion and suspension of members. 6. Resolution of such issues would require a detailed fact-finding enquiry which includes examination of documentary records, oral evidence, rival factual claims. This Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be a fact-finding authority. It is well-settled, the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 is not intended to be exercised for resolution of disputed questions of fact, particularly where such disputes pertain to internal management, administration and elections of non-statutory bodies governed by their own bye-laws and governing instruments. It is equally well settled that where alternative and efficacious remedies are available before appropriate forums competent to examine factual disputes relating to trust administration, membership, elections and alleged violations of governing documents, this Court would ordinarily decline to exercise its writ jurisdiction. 7. Petitioners have not demonstrated that the issues raised by them are incapable of being addressed before such competent forums, nor have they established that the remedies available under law are illusory or ineffective. Mere allegation of inaction or illegality, without establishing a clear statutory breach attributable to the State or its instrumentalities, does not ipso facto warrant invocation of writ jurisdiction. It is to be seen, the dispute, as projected, essentially pertains to the internal governance of a religious charitable trust and its ecclesiastical units. In the absence of a demonstrated violation of any statutory duty by the State or public authorities, interference under Article 226 would amount to this Court assuming the role of an adjudicatory authority over internal disputes of a private religious institution, which is impermissible. 8. In the absence of a demonstrated violation of any statutory duty by the State or public authorities, interference under Article 226 would amount to this Court assuming the role of an adjudicatory authority over internal disputes of a private religious institution, which is impermissible. 8. Learned counsel for petitioners relied on the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in D. Bright Joseph v. Church of South India (CSI), W.P.No. 304272 of 2022 . In the said case, the short question that fell for reference is ‘would a writ petition invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India lie against the CSI which is only a private body and if so to what extent / circumstances such writs would lie.’ The said reference was answered in affirmative. 9. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader has placed before this Court the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S. Shobha v. Muthoot Finance Ltd., 2025 SCC On Line SC 177 wherein it was held as under: 1) For issuing writ against a legal entity, it would have to be an instrumentality or agency of a State or should have been entrusted with such functions as are Governmental or closely associated therewith by being of public importance or being fundamental to the life of the people and hence Governmental. 2) A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be maintainable against (i) the State Government; (ii) Authority; (iii) a statutory body; (iv) an instrumentality or agency of the State: (v) a company which is financed and owned by the State; (vi) a private body run substantially on State funding; (vii) a private body discharging public duty or positive obligation of public nature; and (viii) a person or a body under liability to discharge any function under any Statute, to compel it to perform such a statutory function. 3) Although a non-banking finance company like the Muthoot Finance Ltd. with which we are concerned is duty bound to follow and abide by the guidelines provided by the Reserve Bank of India for smooth conduct of its affairs in carrying on its business, yet those are of regulatory measures to keep a check and provide guideline and not a participatory dominance or control over the affairs of the company. 4) A private company carrying on banking business as a Scheduled bank cannot be termed as a company carrying on any public function or public duty. 5) Normally, mandamus is issued to a public body or authority to compel it to perform some public duty cast upon it by some statute or statutory rule. In exceptional cases a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus may issue to a private body, but only where a public duty is cast upon such private body by a statute or statutory rule and only to compel such body to perform its public duty. 6) Merely because a statue or a rule having the force of a statute requires a company or some other body to do a particular thing, it does not possess the attribute of a statutory body. 7) If a private body is discharging a pubic function and the denial of any rights is in connection with the public duty imposed on such body, the public law remedy can be enforced; the duty cast on the public body may be either statutory or otherwise and the source of such power is immaterial but, nevertheless, there must be the public law element in such action. 8) According to Halsbury’s Laws of England, 3 rd Ed. Vol.30P. 682 ‘a public authority’ is a body not necessarily a county council, municipal corporation or other local authority which has public statutory duties to perform, and which perform the duties and carries out its transactions for the benefit of the public and not for private profit’. There cannot be any general definition of public authority or public action. The facts of each case decide the point.’ However, it was observed that it would be open for the respondent – original petitioner to have recourse to civil remedy before the appropriate Court in relation to the claim and grievance which she agitated by filing the Writ Petitions. 10. Having regard to the nature of the allegations, the reliefs sought, and the requirement of detailed factual adjudication, this Court is of the considered view that the present Writ Petition does not present a fit case for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. 10. Having regard to the nature of the allegations, the reliefs sought, and the requirement of detailed factual adjudication, this Court is of the considered view that the present Writ Petition does not present a fit case for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed, leaving it open to Petitioners to avail such other appropriate and efficacious remedies as may be available to them before the competent forum in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations, claims or counterclaims raised by Petitioners, and the contentions of all the parties are left open to be urged before the appropriate forum. No costs. 12. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.