HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. SURI APPA RAO W.P.No. 24167 of 2010 Date: 16-12-2010 Between: Dr. P. Sreemala Reddy and another ………. Appellants and The Andhra Pradesh State Human Rights Commission and another ……… Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. SURI APPA RAO W.P.No. 24167 of 2010 ORDER: (Per BPR, J) Heard Sri P. Venugopal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri G. Madhusudhan Reddy, learned counsel who filed the writ petition, and Sri R. Raghunandan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent. At their request, the main writ petition itself is taken up for disposal. 2. Both the petitioners herein invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking for Mandamus and assailing the proceedings of the first respondent, namely Andhra Pradesh State Human Rights Commission, in H.R.C.No.6350 of 2009, dated 09-08-2010, as illegal and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and to set aside the same. 3. Briefly, the main ground of attack is to the effect that the complaint as sought to be raised in the said H.R.C.No.6350 of 2009, wherein the Commission has passed the impugned order, in fact is a civil dispute and does not relate to any violation of human rights and therefore, the Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint nor to pass any orders. 4. According to the petitioners, the first petitioner is the Secretary and Correspondent and the second petitioner is the Joint Secretary of Priyadarshini Educational Society, which is registered in the year 2007. There is a serious dispute exists between the petitioners and the second respondent in regard to the management of the society. The petitioners themselves have filed O.P.No.2103 of 2009 before the Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, under Section 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Act, 2001 (for short ‘Societies Act’), to which the second respondent is a party. In the said O.P., a notice calling for a general body meeting and the resolutions passed were assailed on the ground of nonconformity with the byelaws. It has been alleged in the said O.P. that the second respondent is a very influential and powerful person and he is trying to dislodge the petitioners from the office of the Secretary/Correspondent of the society. In fact, according to them, they have already invested an amount of Rs.1.5 crores by obtaining loans and with the help of friends and relatives and the said O.P. is still pending. Therefore, none of those questions involved would attract violation of human rights and thus no jurisdiction is conferred to entertain any such complaint by the Commission. Hence, the writ petition. 5. For appropriate consideration of the plea as set forth by the petitioners in the present writ, it necessitates to refer to the proceedings in H.R.C.No.6350 of 2009. On a reading of the said orders, dated 09-08-2010, which are impugned in this writ petition, it shows that the complaint has been filed by the second respondent as the President of the society against the petitioners seeking the reliefs for furnishing proper and audited accounts with necessary material in support about the inflow of funds, capital and revenue expenditure incurred by the society and the college till July, 2009, and to return the balance amount and also to furnish the audited accounts with material in support for all the years from 2006 and also to direct them to refrain from making false complaints against the society and college to various other authorities and further to direct the Branch Manager, SBI, Sanga Reddy Branch, to release the funds stopped by it and permit the smooth operation of the accounts. 6. The Commission, by taking note of the filing of the case in O.P.No.2103 of 2009, had noticed that the claim of the second respondent was that most of the amounts have been invested by her, her late husband and her two sons and in spite of the same, there are no audited accounts and there is mismanagement, for which the petitioners are responsible as per the obligation under Section 12 of the Societies Act to maintain the accounts and records. Hence, it was felt necessary to issue direction to the Accountant General, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderebad to depute an auditor to audit the accounts of the society for the period since its inception i.e., 2006 to 31-07-2010 and file the audited accounts before the Commission by 01-10-2010. Further there is a direction to the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Sangareddy branch, to release the funds to the second respondent by permitting regular operations of the accounts of the college by the authorized signatory and file compliance report before the Commission by the said date. It is this order which, according to the petitioners, is squarely covered by the proceedings which are already initiated by them in O.P.No.2103 of 2009 and therefore, apart from the matter being subsidized, the question of violation of human rights does not arise. Hence, the impugned orders are liable to be set at naught. 7. In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent herein, apart from the denial as to the allegations made in support of the writ petition, it has been reiterated that there is violation of human rights of herself as President and also that of the students, staff and other stakeholders of the college which is being run by the society, apart from the similar violation by the bank. An account was stated to have been opened in March, 2009 to receive and disburse the funds by way of scholarship reimbursement for students of the weaker sections. The said account has to be necessarily operated in full compliance. In spite of the same, it has been found that in July, 2009 the bank dishonoured some of the cheques issued in favour of the students of the weaker sections of the college and stopped the college from operating the account, which is totally illegal and violative of their rights. Such action on the part of the college and bank is causing hardship to the students of the weaker sections for no valid reason nor without any proper intimation about the same. However, it has been stated on behalf of the petitioners that there is an order in O.P.No.188 of 2009 in regard to the operation of the bank account, but nothing has been shown nor furnished. As a result of such action on the part of the petitioners, there has been a total stoppage of salaries and other amounts to the students and therefore, this violates human rights of the members of the society and also that of the students apart from that of the teaching and non-teaching staff since their livelihood is depending upon those receipts. The other details have been given in the counter affidavit about the investments made all along. The allegation that the first petitioner is a member of the society or the Secretary was denied and it was pointed out that she has resigned from her primary membership and also her position as Secretary of the society. Both the petitioners abstained themselves from their duties and they are no longer in any of the posts as they are claiming. In fact, in their erstwhile capacity, they have mismanaged the society and the funds. Yet they have not submitted any single audited account from the year 2006 onwards and there is no explanation coming forth on behalf of the petitioners except filing false cases. There is absolutely no justification on the part of the petitioners. It has been pointed that the present complaint has been filed on 01-09-2009 before the Commission. It is only as a counterblast, the petitioners have filed O.P.No.2103 of 2009 on 09-10-2009 and therefore, the said proceedings do not in any way come against the Commission’s entertaining the complaint and passing the orders. The petitioners falsely represented as Secretary and other office holders. In fact, in C.C.No.28 of 2009 filed before the District Forum (under Consumer Protection Act, 1986), Medak at Sangareddy, the first petitioner herself stated that she is not the Secretary or Correspondent and her occupation is only housewife. Hence, she sought for deletion of her name from the complaint. The said complaint in C.C.No.28 of 2009, at the instance of a student, was dismissed on 22-12-2009. The petitioners did not disclose about the filing of O.P.No.188 of 2009 against C. Gopal Reddy and M. Amruth Reddy. Therefore, the allegations of the complaint filed before the Commission are totally different and are nothing to do with the proceedings which have been later instituted. In view of the aforesaid allegations and especially the greater inconvenience, which is caused to the students and the administration, wherein the career of about 600 students is in jeopardy, there is no justification for entertaining the writ nor there are any merits and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. Considering the submission made by both sides, the point, which arises for consideration, is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the complaint as entertained by the first respondent-Commission is maintainable and the impugned orders are sustainable? 9. At the outset, it is quite apparent from the chequered events and the proceedings, as set forth between the parties all along earlier both under the provisions of the Societies Act and also the complaints including the one before the District Forum, that there is a dispute between the parties. The claim of the petitioners that they are the Secretary and the Joint Secretary respectively is seriously disputed. Even a bare reading of the proceedings, which have been mentioned by both sides, would amply disclose about the statement of affairs. The complaint made by the second respondent is only in regard to the activities on the part of the petitioners resulting into the stoppage of virtual day-to-day affairs of the society including in regard to the funds which are not only for meeting the day-to-day expenses but also pertain to the disbursement of scholarships through cheques to the eligible students. There is no justification pointed out on behalf of the petitioners as to there being any serious irregularity as such on the part of the second respondent to make any such stoppage or to deny the students about their due entitlement. Apart from the proceedings in O.P.No.2103 of 2009 and O.P.No.188 of 2009, as mentioned on behalf of the second respondent, and also in the other cases, which are no doubt pending, the fact remains that there is a total stoppage of the bank account at the instance of the petitioners alone. Even though it is stated to have been mentioned on behalf of the petitioners that there are some orders in regard to the operation of the bank account, however, nothing has been pointed out either in the proceedings before the Commission or even in this Court also. Therefore, mere pendency as such would not in any way come against the operation of the bank account in the day- to-day affairs including distribution of the scholarship to the students. The petitioners’ main objection is in entertaining any such complaint before the Commission during the pendency of the proceedings in O.P.No.2103 of 2009. Admittedly the complaint has been filed on 01- 09-2009, whereas the aforesaid proceedings in O.P.No.2103 of 2009 were filed on 09-10-2009 i.e., after receipt of the notice and intimation about the complaint to the Commission. Therefore, it cannot be said that any subsequent proceedings initiated by the petitioners can be stated to be a sub judice or would come against the proceedings before the Commission. Even otherwise, the jurisdiction of the Commission is amply wide enough to receive any complaint of the nature especially where the rights of the staff and the students are being involved and for no reason they are being denied of their legitimate entitlement. It cannot be said that there is any justification as such on the part of the petitioners or even bank authorities as such to withhold the amounts or for not allowing the operation of the bank account. Even in this Court, nothing has been pointed out as to why the bank operations could not be permitted to be done by the authorities. All other disputes as sought to be raised by the petitioners in O.P.No.2103 of 1999 can certainly be gone into by the respective Courts. However, it cannot be said that any interdiction in regard to the entitlement, which is not only a support for the purpose of education of the respective students but also the livelihood for the staff etc., would not in any way amount to violation of human rights. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the petitioners have hopelessly failed to make out any warrant for interference by this Court with the impugned proceedings of the Commission. 10. The entire gambit of the complaint as made before the Commission is in respect of all the commissions and omissions on the part of the State Bank of India, Sangareddy branch, which squarely falls under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and also an independent entity itself. The petitioners have conveniently avoided in impleading the said bank for no valid reason. There could not have been any orders or any question to be gone into at the instance of the petitioners in the absence of the State Bank of India against whom not only the complaint is filed but also the allegations are made in respect of violation of human rights of the students and staff of the institution. Therefore, on this count also the very writ petition, which is in the nature of invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction as conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is neither sustainable nor maintainable. 11. Coming to the complaint that the matters are already pending before the Court in respect of the proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Societies Act, as already pointed out the same is only post the complaint lodged with the Commission by the second respondent and apparently, the same is only taken recourse just to avoid facing the commission for the violation of rights as complained against. It cannot be said that the complaint or the allegation as made before the Commission is squarely well within the parameters or the jurisdiction of the civil Court or other remedies as contemplated under the law. The fact remains that the account was opened by the society for the purpose for receiving and disbursing the funds by way of scholarship reimbursement for the students of weaker sections and also for the benefit of the administration of the society rather than any mere deposit. There is no allegation whatsoever in nature as to misuse of any fund or misappropriation as such. The allegations made by the second respondent in the counter are specifically to the effect that as a result of the stay orders granted by this Court, the entire administration come to a stand still and the students are put to peril and there is denial of due scholarships. There is also no denial to the fact that even though the account was opened in March, 2009 with sufficient funds, the cheques, which have been issued in favour of the students of weaker sections of the college, were dishonoured and the college was stopped from operating the account. Merely because some proceedings are pending, the day-to-day administration of the institution cannot come to a stand still and the students with a career at their stake cannot be deprived of the sustainable support, which is being provided by way of scholarships. The allegation that the students are being denied of the amounts under the scholarship is not denied by the petitioners. 12. The principle of sub judice would not have any application to the facts of the case and the complaint with the allegations as made against the petitioners herein before the Commission would not take away the jurisdiction of the Commission for going into the aspect of violation of human rights. The students are entitled to carry forward their studies with the support and scholarship given by the institution apart from the regular running of the institution with the availability of funds for day-to-day affairs. Any denial thereof would certainly make serious enroute not only into the vested rights but also the human activity vis-à-vis the rights as recognized. It may not be out of place to mention that in spite of the complaint against the bank for those acts, no proper explanation or any justification is forthcoming on behalf of the bank to stop the scholarships or even running the bank account. 13. In the circumstances, we are of the view that making a bald and sleeping allegation of pendency of the proceedings as sub judice to come against the Commission’s taking on record any such enquiry or passing the orders is wholly misconceived and we do not find any justification. Apparently the petitioners are only trying to stall the entire administration apart from the deprival of the benefit to the students and interdicting the affairs of the institution. Hence, we also do not find any bona fides in the approach of the petitioners herein by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court and therefore, they are not entitled to indulgence either. 14. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ B. PRAKASH RAO, J __________________ V. SURI APPA RAO, J Date: 16-12-2010 YCR