HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.25908 of 2007 Dated: January 21, 2008 Between: Bible Mission (Regd.No.66/1959), Bible Mission Compound, Guntur, represented by its President Rev. Dr. Addanki John, and another. … Petitioners And The Superintendent of Police, Guntur District, Guntur, and others. … Respondents Order: This writ petition has been filed seeking Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents-officials in not considering the representation dated 20-11-2007 filed by the petitioners seeking permission to convene annual convention of the first petitioner-society on 27th, 28th and 29th January, 2008 in Guntur District as arbitrary and illegal. 2. The first petitioner is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (‘the Act’ for brevity). The second petitioner claims to be the President of the Managing Committee of the Society. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that the first petitioner is a Christian religious organization working for the welfare and well being of its members and likeminded persons and it is managing more than 2000 churches in India and abroad. It is stated that it is having Ac.10.00 cents of land opposite Nagarjuna University, Nagarjuna Nagar, Guntur, and abutting the said land there is Ac.50.00 cents of vacant land. The second petitioner, claiming to be the president of the first petitioner-society, submitted representation dated 20-11-2007 to the respondents-officials seeking permission for convening annual convention of Bible Mission on 27th, 28th and 29th January, 2008. It is also stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that in view of the importance of the proposed convention to be held on the aforesaid dates, elaborate arrangements have been made by erecting large-size pandals, for supplying free food for the visitors. It is also stated that cooperation of Government departments has been sought. Precisely, it is the grievance of the petitioners that though they have made all preparations for the proposed convention and submitted representation dated 20-11-2007, seeking permission to hold the annual convention, followed by reminders, no action has been taken by the respondents-officials for grant of such permission. 3. This court, at the stage of admission, by order dated 06-12-2007 issued notice to the respondents. In the meanwhile, respondents 4 and 5 herein have filed a petition to implead themselves in this case claiming that they are the President and Vice-President respectively of the first petitioner-society. This court, by order dated 27-12-2007, ordered the said petition. 4. In the affidavit filed in support of the said implead petition, it is stated by respondents 4 and 5 that the second petitioner in the writ petition was elected as President of the first petitioner-society in the year 2000, but, however, in view of certain misdeeds committed by him, the General Body of the first petitioner-society met on 11-07-2007 at Guntur and elected a new Body. It is stated that as per the bye-laws of the Society, quorum of the General Body is two-third and on 11-07- 2007, 446 members out of 652 had met and in the said General Body Meeting, they were elected as President and Vice-President of the first petitioner-society. Precisely, it is their case that in view of their election as President and Vice-President, the second petitioner does not have any authority to submit any representation to the respondents-officials, seeking permission to hold annual convention, on behalf of the first petitioner-society. 5. Though counter affidavit is not filed by the Government, learned Government Pleader for Home has produced a copy of the letter issued by the District Registrar, Guntur in proceedings No.Soc/3249/2007 dated 14-09-2007 in which it is stated that in view of the rival claims to the management of the first petitioner-society, parties were informed to approach the Court concerned and to obtain necessary orders for taking action. 6. It is submitted by Sri Pattabhi, learned counsel representing learned counsel for the petitioners, that no meeting as alleged by respondents 4 and 5 was conducted and admittedly the second petitioner was the president of the first petitioner-society and in the absence of any power in the bye-laws, he continues to be the President of the first petitioner-society and in that capacity he submitted representation dated 20-11-2007 seeking permission to hold annual convention on the aforesaid date. It is further submitted that in response to the said representation, during the pendency of the writ petition, first respondent has sent letter dated 30-11-2007 seeking opinion regarding title of the land where the proposed convention is scheduled and regarding the requirement of remitting requisite amount for seeking mike permission etc. It is stated that in response to the same, a representation was submitted on 14-12-2007 along with copies of title deeds to show the ownership of the Bible Mission over an extent of Ac.10.00 cents of land in D.No.139, opposite Nagarjuna University, Nagarjuna Nagar, Guntur and an amount of Rs.15,000/- has also been paid vide Challan No.8675 towards the use of fifty loudspeakers. It is further submitted that in pursuance of the said representation, permission was also granted on 03-01-2008 by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Guntur District, but, however, the same was subsequently cancelled by proceedings dated 05-01-2008 only on the ground that pendency of the writ petition was not disclosed by the petitioners. 7. On the other hand, Sri Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5 submits that in the General Body Meeting conducted on 11-07-2007, fourth respondent was elected as President in place of the second petitioner and as such the second petitioner had no authority to seek permission for conducting the proposed annual convention. He further submits that in view of the dispute in the Management, it is open for the second petitioner to seek adjudication from the competent authority as per the provisions of the Act, but he is not entitle for any relief by way of directions from this court. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents-officials also submits that as there is a dispute in the Management of the first petitioner-society, petitioners are not entitled for any directions as prayed for. 8. It is not in dispute that the first petitioner-society had been holding such conventions earlier. Even according to respondents 4 and 5, second petitioner was the President of the Managing Committee of the Society. Learned counsel for petitioners has produced documents to show that Transport Department and Fire Department have taken steps on their representation, for making arrangements for the proposed annual convention to be held on 27th, 28th and 29th January, 2008. He has also produced a copy of the proceedings issued by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Guntur District whereby permission was granted, during the pendency of the writ petition, and also another proceedings whereby the said permission was cancelled only on the ground that petitioners have not disclosed about the pendency of the writ petition before this court in their representation. Though it is the case of respondents 4 and 5 that certain misdeeds were committed by the second petitioner and hence a new Body was elected in the General Body Meeting held on 11-07- 2007, but, however, the said aspects were not at all considered by any of the authorities so far. Whether the second petitioner is validly continuing as the President of the first petitioner-society and whether he has any authority to submit any representation on behalf of the first petitioner-society seeking permission to hold annual convention or not can also be prima facie looked into by the first respondent. 9. Whereas it is the case of the second petitioner that he is the president of the first petitioner-society and as per the bye-laws of the society there is no tenure, as such he continued as the President of the Society and in the capacity of the President of the Society he has submitted representation seeking permission for holding the proposed annual convention, on the other hand respondents 4 and 5 are also claiming that they are the President and Vice-President respectively pursuant to the elections alleged to have taken place in the General Body Meeting held on 11-07-2007. Though for resolution of such disputes and for adjudication, the parties have to move the notified competent authority under the provisions of the Act, but, however, it can be looked into whether second petitioner had an authority to represent the Society or not for the proposed convention, to come to a prima facie conclusion, for the limited purpose of disposing of the representation dated 20-11-2007. If there are any disputes in the Management of the Society, in such an event, even the first respondent can drive the parties for adjudication by the competent forum constituted under the provisions of the Act. 10. But, as much as respondents 1 and 2 have not considered the representation of the petitioners, I dispose of the writ petition directing respondents 1 and 2 to consider the representation of the petitioners dated 20-11-2007 along with objections to be filed by respondents 4 and 5 and pass appropriate orders on its own merits within a period of three days from the date of receipt of this order. It is open for respondents 4 and 5 to submit objections, if any, on their own, before respondents 1 and 2. If any such objections are filed, respondents 1 and 2 shall consider the same before taking a decision on the representation of the petitioners. No order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY. January 21, 2008 MRR Dispatch copy tomorrow. BO MRR