IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 1175 of 2002 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 24/04/2002 in WP NO : 5467 OF 2001 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Vizagpatnam High School Society rep.by its Chairman Dr.J.L.Nayar R/o.Visakhapatnam ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Director of School Education Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad 2 The Regional Joint Director of School Education Kakinada, East Godavari District 3 The District Educational Officer Visakhapatnam 4 N.C.Simon S/o.late N.Simon R/o.Kakinada Eat Godavari District 5 K.Krupavaram S/o.K.Gamiuliel R/o.M.V.P.Colony Visakhapatnam 6 The District Registrar of Assurances Old Post Office, Visakhapatnam .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.AKA.VENKATARAMANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION SECOND APPEAL NO : 300 of 2002 (Appeal under Section 100 of CPC against the decree dated ______ in No. of 0 on the file of the Court of preferred against the decree dated ______ in AS No. 682 of 1998 on the file of the court of ) Between: ..... APPELLANT AND .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant:MR.AKA.VENKATARAMANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.G.V.SHIVAJI The Court Delivered the Following JUDGEMENT:-- THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.1175 OF 2002 AND SECOND APPEAL NO.300 OF 2002 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per BPR,J) Since both these matters arise involve the same parties and cover the same area of dispute, they are taken up together for disposal. In Writ Appeal No.1175 of 2002, the appellant is the writ petitioner who is aggrieved by the order dated 24.04.2002 passed in Writ Petition No.5467 of 2001 by the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition, whereunder the appellant/writ petitioner unsuccessfully sought for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondents 1 to 3 herein as illegal and arbitrary; and a consequential direction restraining them from recognizing the claim of respondents 4 and 5 over the Society’s Chairmanship and Correspondentship respectively. In Second Appeal No.300 of 2002, the appellant is the unsuccessful plaintiff in the suit O.S.No.682 of 1998, which was filed against the fourth respondent herein for permanent injuction restraining him from interfering with the affairs of the Society. The said suit was dismissed after regular trial and the same was confirmed in appeal in A.S.No.308 of 1996. Hence, the second appeal. After hearing the learned counsel on either side and after perusing the material on record, the issue that boils down for consideration is as to whether in the facts and circumstances, the appellant’s claim to the Office of Chairmanship vis-à-vis the challenge made against respondents 4 and 5 is sustainable. De hors the facts and the chequered events which have been gone into in detail by the learned Judge, having due regard to the nature of the dispute which can only be entertained by a competent Civil Court, the writ petition was disposed of directing respondent 1 to consider the proposal sent by respondent 4 claiming himself to be the Chairman of the Board of Management elected in the election held on 30.01.1999 and also the proposal, if any, sent by the appellant claiming himself to be the Chairman for lifetime, in accordance with law, after giving adequate opportunity to both the parties and to pass necessary orders thereon. The learned Judge should not have issued such a direction to the first respondent inter alia to consider the proposal sent by respondent 4, which decision could only be given by a competent Civil Court. While holding inter alia in the order that in case there was a dispute as to the right over the post of Correspondent, the authorities had to request the rival groups to approach the competent Civil Court and get such dispute resolved; and that the authorities under the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 could not resolve such dispute between the two rival groups; the learned Judge ought not to have vested Respondent 1 with the power to decide the issue. The aforesaid direction given by the learned Judge runs quite contrary to the finding given by him with regard to the powers and jurisdiction of the authorities to go into such disputes. Except by making them approach the Civil Court, such direction, prima facie, we are of the view, cannot be sustained. The writ appeal is therefore to be allowed to that extent. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we leave it open to the parties to approach a competent Civil Court and seek appropriate relief in which event, the same shall be considered and disposed of on its own merits and in accordance with law, without being influenced in any manner by any of the observations made by this Court in the present proceedings, after giving due notice and affording an opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Coming to the second appeal which was preferred challenging the concurrent finding of fact given by both the Courts below, especially in view of the present direction in the Writ Appeal permitting the parties to approach a competent Civil Court for appropriate relief, the very suit filed by the appellant seeking a limited relief of permanent injunction is not tenable. We therefore do not find any question of law, much less, a substantial question of law, warranting interference in the second appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Appeal is allowed and the Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs. _____________________ B.PRAKASH RAO, J. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 8th September, 2009. PGS/VGSR