THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA W.P. No.16215 of 2009 Dated: 22.09.2009 Between: Vinayashram, Kalyana Kavuru Cherukupally Mandal, Guntur District. Rep. By its Managing Trustee-cum-Chairman Prof. N.G.Ranga Krishi Vignana Kendra Kavuru, Mr. Thummala Tulasidas, S/o Krishnaiah, 75 years, Occ: Cultivation R/o Kalyana Kavuru, Cherukupally Mandal Guntur District. Petitioner And The Collector and District Magistrate, Guntur and 5 others. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA W.P. No.16215 of 2009 ORDER: 1 Sri Tummala Tulasidas claiming to be the managing trustee-cum-Chairman of the Petitioner-Society approached this court and filed the present Writ Petition with the following prayer: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the Petitioner herein prays that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the order of the first Respondent dated 01.08.2009 made in Rc.No.Plg.II.1236/2009 in appointing the 2nd Respondent as Special Officer to operate Bank Accounts of Prof. N.G.Ranga Krishi Vignana Kendra in the 3rd and 4th Respondent banks to enable him to act on behalf of Kendra, further action of the Respondent No.3 in not permitting the Petitioners to operate the bank accounts under the guise of the impugned order, as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, without jurisdiction, violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India, contrary to the judgment of a division bench of this Hon'ble Court dated 01.04.2009, made in W.A.No.421 of 2009, W.P.No.790 of 2009, W.A.No.422 of 2009 and W.P.No.1020 of 2009, violative of the procedure contemplated under the Banking (Regulation) Act, 1949 and the Rules made there under and consequently set aside the impugned order and direct the Respondent No.3 to permit the Petitioners to operate the bank accounts and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 2 Brief facts as culled out from the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition are that Sri Tulasidas, who is arrayed as 2nd Petitioner herein was appointed as Trustee of Vinayashram on 28.09.2008 and he was sworn in as such on 06.10.2008. Thereafter, as he was appointed as the managing trustee-cum-Chairman by the other members, he is acting in that capacity since 17.10.2008. One Sri Jagarlamudi Narendranath (hereinafter called ‘the implead Petitioner) having come to know about the said appointment of the second Petitioner herein as the managing trustee, played fraud and stated that himself and four others are appointed as the members of the trust board and accordingly an order was passed by the Collector on 05.01.2009 appointing the implead Petitioner and the said four others as trustees of the said trust board and directed them to convene a meeting on 05.01.2009 to pass certain resolutions. As the said interference etc., is totally unauthorized and further as the Collector passed certain orders at the instance of the implead Petitioner, the petitioners herein approached this court and filed Writ Petition No.790 of 2009 questioning the order passed by the Collector on 05.01.2009. This court by order dated 22.01.2009 was pleased to suspend the said order of appointment dated 05.01.2009 made by the Collector. Thereafter the implead Petitioner and others filed W.V.M.P.No.173 of 2009 and similarly the Collector also filed W.V.M.P.No.577 of 2009 to vacate the said order dated 22.01.2009 passed by this court. However, this Court after hearing all the parties concerned, made the said interim order dated 22.01.2009 absolute. Questioning the said order, the implead Petitioner and others filed Writ Appeal Nos.421and 422 of 2009 and the said appeals are to the effect that the Collector has no jurisdiction whatsoever. The Division Bench clubbed all the matters i.e. W.A.No.421 and 422 of 2009 and W.P.No.790 of 2009 and 1020 of 2009 filed by another trustee, heard the matters and by its judgment dated 01.04.2009 decided that the Collector has no jurisdiction whatsoever to declare the implead Petitioner and the said four others as members of the trust board. The order of the Division Bench is extracted as under: “In this view of the matter and in view of the fact that the dispute in question is primarily jurisdictional in nature, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order of the Collector impugned in both the Writ Petitions declaring the same as without jurisdiction and non est. However, it is needless to observe that if any party is aggrieved, it is always open for such party to avail such remedy that is available under law.” 3 While dismissing the said writ appeals and the Writ Petitions, as the Division Bench referred to Section 34 of the Trusts Act, the Petitioners herein approached the Civil Court and filed TOP No.93 of 2009 seeking its opinion to find out as to whether the State Bank of India can allow the Petitioners herein to operate the accounts or not. However, the Civil Court i.e. IV Additional District Judge by an order dated 14.07.2009 dismissed the said application holding that the powers conferred under section 34 of the Trusts Act cannot be exercised to decide the controversy between the parties in a summary manner. 4 Be that as it may, the Collector vide his proceedings RC No. Plg.II.1236/2009 dated 01.08.2009 passed the following order: “Through the reference 2nd cited the staff members of KVK, Kavuru have submitted that due to disputes among the Trust Board Members of Krishi Vignana Kendra, Kavuru and pending proceedings in the court of Law from 17.10.2008 all the Agricultural operations of the KVK are impaired, all the mandatory activities are obstructed and they have not paid salaries from May 2009 due to non drawal of funds by the disputing Trust Board Members. To solve the problems, the Joint Director of Agriculture, Guntur who is the Member of the Scientific Advisory Committee of KVK has appointed as special officer to KVK to operate Bank transactions, with State Bank of India, Arumbaka and Andhra Bank Gullapalli of Cherukupalli Mandal to draw funds, to mobilize all the Agricultural activities and to pay the salaries of the staff with immediate effect.” 5 As the said order dated 01.08.2009 passed by the Collector, according to the Petitioners runs contrary to the finding given by the Division Bench of this court in W.A.No.421 and 422 of 2009 and W.P.No.790 of 2009 and 1020 of 2009 dated 01.04.2009, they approached this court and filed the present Writ Petition and this court was pleased to pass an interim order on 07.08.2009 in WPMP No.21277 of 2009, which is extracted as under: “The impugned order dated 01.08.2009 passed by the first respondent is hereby suspended.” 6 Heard. 7 From a perusal of the above facts, it is clear that the said order passed by the Collector on 01.08.2009 is definitely bad in law for the reason that the same runs contrary to the letter and spirit of the order dated 01.04.2009 passed by the Division Bench of this court. However, the said Jagarlamudi Narendranath approached this court and filed W.P.M.P.No.22971 of 2009 seeking his impleadment as one of the Respondents to the Writ Petition. According to him, the second Petitioner in the Writ Petition i.e. Tummala Tulasidas was never elected either as a Trustee or as Managing Trustee and according to him as on 17.10.2008 there were 5 original trustees i.e. 1) Gogineni Nageswara Rao, 2) Pavuluri Siva Ramakrishnaiah, 3) Jagarlamudi Narendranath, 4) Pavuluri Bala Krishna and 5) Thummala Narendranath. According to him, the said five original trustees elected him as the Managing Trustee on 17.10.2008 and after the said election, four persons including the second Petitioner were illegally admitted as members of the said Trust. In the light of the said illegal admission of those four trustees including the second Petitioner again an election had taken place on 18.10.2008 and the implead Petitioner was elected as the Managing Trustee unanimously. After his election on 18.10.2008 as the Managing Trustee the four newly added persons including the second Petitioner herein i.e. Tulasidas were removed as trustees and they were allowed to continue as the advisors of the Trust Board by virtue of resolution dated 22.10.2008. 8 After disposal of Writ Appeals and Writ Petitions, according to the implead Petitioner, the Writ Petitioners herein instead of approaching the Civil Court for declaration as to who is the Managing Trustee or the Trustees of the Board, intentionally approached the civil court and filed an application i.e. TOP No.93 of 2009 under Section 34 of the Trusts Act only against the State Bank of India and the Civil Court rightly refused to decide the said issue holding that the said controversy cannot be decided summarily. In the light of the said controversy, as the employees of the Krishi Vignana Kendra, which is affiliated to the Trust Board, approached the Collector and requested him to pass appropriate orders so that they do not suffer for want of salaries etc, and the Collector passed an order on 01.08.2009 appointing the Joint Director of Agriculture, Guntur to operate bank transactions and pay salaries to the staff members of the said Krishi Vignana Kendra. According to the implead Petitioner the said order, which is impugned in this Writ Petition is only to facilitate the said employees but not with any ulterior motive. 9 Sri G. Nageswara Rao, filed another implead petition WPMP No.23909 of 2009 stating that he is the original Managing Trustee of the said Trust Board and so he is a necessary party to the Writ Petition. According to him he became as member of the first Petitioner Trust on 29.05.1981 and he became the Managing Trustee of the Trust Board and Chairman of Krishi Vignana Kendra on 12.08.2009 and thereafter he was elected as a permanent Managing Trustee of the first Petitioner Trust Board and Chairman of Krishi Vignana Kendra by a resolution dated 30.06.2003. According to him in the meeting of the Trust Board held on 17.10.2008 the second Petitioner in the Writ Petition i.e. Tulasidas was appointed as the Managing Trustee of the Trust Board and Chairman of Krishi Vignana Kendra and since the date of appointment, the second writ Petitioner is functioning in both the capacities. It is further stated by the said Nageswara Rao it is only after he came out of the Trust Board the implead Petitioner i.e. Jagarlamudi Narendranath was appointed as Truestee and he never participated in any of the meetings of the Trust. However, as the said Narendranath is highly influential person, he trespassed into his house and obtained his signatures under threat and coercion. It is further stated by the said Nageswara Rao that in the meeting held on 01.06.2009 the Trust Board unanimously removed Mr.Narendranath from the post of Trustee and the said resolution has become final. 10 The said implead Petitions of course are vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Rudra Prasad and he also filed a detailed reply. But this Court is of the view that the said Jagarlamudi Narendranath shall be impleaded as one of the respondents because of the facts narrated by him in the said implead petition. Further, it is only after hearing Sri Movva Chandra Sekhar Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the said Jagarlamudi Narendranath, it came to light that there is a dispute wit regard to the Trust Board. Accordingly, the said implead petitions are ordered. 11 From the above pleadings, this court is of the considered view that there are disputes between the parties. From the above pleadings, it is not possible for this court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution to decide as to who are the Trustees and who is the Managing Trustee of the first Petitioner Vinayashram and similarly who are the persons that are connected with Krishi Vignana Kendra. These are all aspects to be gone into by a competent Civil Court and give a finding as to who is the Managing Trustee and who are the Trustees of the first Petitioner Trust Board. When the same is suggested to the counsel that this matter cannot be decided by this Court, the counsel fairly conceded that these aspects are to be decided only by a competent Civil Court. In the light of the consensus arrived at by the parties, this court is of the view that the parties can as well approach the District Court, Guntur and file necessary suits for appropriate reliefs. 12 May be it is true that the Collector passed the order impugned in this Writ Petition on 1.8.2009 keeping in view the interest of the staff members of the Krishi Vignana Kendra. However, in view of the orders passed by this court in W.A.Nos.421 and 422 of 2009 and W.P.No.790 of 2009 and 1020 of 2009 dated 01.04.2009, the Collector ought not to have passed the said order. Hence this court has no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the said order is without jurisdiction. Keeping the interest of the staff members of the said Krishi Vignana Kendra and to see that there is smooth administration of the first petitioner Trust Board, as and when suits are instituted by the parties, the Civil Court may pass appropriate orders keeping in mind the interest of the staff members and the smooth administration of the Trust Board. Here it should be made clear that in the light of the above orders, the interim orders passed in the Writ Petition do not survive. 13 The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. -------------------------- 22.09.2009 kvsn