IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THIS THE 4th DAY OF AUGUST, 2010 PRESENT: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.219 of 2010 BETWEEN: The Convention of Baptist Churches of the Northern Circars, rep. by its Secretary … PETITIONER(S) AND The District Collector, Visakhapatnam District, Visakhapatnam and others …RESPONDENT(S) HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.219 of 2010 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) This writ petition is in the form of Public Interest Litigation seeking issuance of mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents herein in initiating steps for conducting fair elections to the whole body of the Convention of Baptist Churches of the Northern Circars (CBCNC) (Regd.No.16/48-49) as illegal and arbitrary and for a consequential direction for conduct of undisputed elections to the petitioner-society as per their constitution and bye-laws to emerge out as undisputed management of CBCNC to the respondents herein under an officer to be appointed by the Court for the said purpose. The petitioner, who is Secretary of the petitioner-society, states that Article 8 of the constitution of the society prescribes the procedure for holding meeting for Convention; that the management of the convention is by an elected governing body; that Article 10 of its constitution prescribes the personnel and the manner of election to the governing body as well as other boards and committees; that the officers of the Convention shall be President, Vice President, Secretary, Recording Secretary and two Treasures; and that the regular meeting of the Convention shall be held in the month of January every year and the election to these posts shall be held in the above said meetings. It is stated that elections to the said posts were held till 1978 and thereafter, on account of some differences arose among some members, no elections were held up to 1981 and later elections were held in the year 1982 and since then there were no elections because of the different rival groups and that those rival groups are trying to establish their right only by selling the properties of the petitioner-society but not by virtue of proper and valid elections. It is stated that one Molaurin High School, Kakinada, which belongs to the petitioner-society, has been acquired under Section 67(1) of the A.P. Education Act, 1982, vide G.O.Ms.No.3 dated 10.01.2000 and the members of the petitioner-society are involved in only litigation and they are no concentrating on the affairs of the society and to safeguard its minority status, elections should be held for the said society and, therefore, seeks to issue necessary directions to the 3rd and 4th respondents for conducting elections to the said society. In the counter affidavit filed by District Cooperative Officer, Visakhapatnam, the 3rd respondent herein, it is stated that since the petitioner-society is not registered under the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (Act No.7/1964), and is registered under the Societies Registration Act XXI of 1860, to which he has no authority, he has no power or authority for appointment of an Election Officer to conduct elections to the petitioner-society and to interfere with its affairs and that the petitioner has to invoke the provisions of the said Act and there is no public interest involved in the matter and the inter-se disputes cannot be redressed in the form of Public Interest Litigation. To a specific question put by the Court as to whether the 3rd respondent can exercise the powers and control the affairs of the society, and, if so, under what provision of the statute, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not brought our notice any of such provision. For entertaining the Public Interest Litigation, a person whose statutory rights have been infringed can apply for a mandamus against the public officials who have a statutory obligation to manage the affairs of the society which is not properly managed. In the absence of any such public duty cast upon the 3rd respondent to interfere with the affairs of the society, the remedy of the petitioner, if any, is only to move the civil Court by instituting a suit. Therefore, the present writ petition, which is filed in the form of Public Interest Litigation, is devoid of merits. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ (A. GOPAL REDDY, J) ________________ (K.C.BHANU, J) 4th August, 2010 CVRK