IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NOs: 10906 & 11774 of 2008 W.P.No.10906 of 2008 Between: B. Venkateshwar Reddy S/o Chenna Krishna Reddy A.P. Public Health and medical Employees Union, (Regd. No. 3194- INTUC), campus of AP Vaidya Vidhana Parishad, Koti, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND The Director of Health A.P., Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ or order or direction, especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus; I) declare the impugned proceeding No. 6406/E10.B/2008 dt.9-5-2008 issued by the respondent as illegal, arbitrary and set a side the same. consequently direct the respondent to recognize and entertain the elected body of AP Public Health and Medical Employees Union (Regd.No.3149-INTUC) as per the proceeding No. 6406/E-10.B/2008 dt.3-5-2008 iii. and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.VASUDEVA REDDY Counsel for Respondent: G.P. for Medical Health & Family Welfare WRIT PETITION NO : 11774 of 2008 Between: N.Syamsunder S/o.N.L.Narsimha Rao General Secretary, A.P. Public Health & Medical Employees Union, Regd. No. 3194, Resident of No.118, New MLA Quarters, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Medical & Health Dept. Secretariat Building, Hyderabad. 2 The Director of Health, Government of Andhra Pradesh, A.P. Vaidya Vidhan Bhavan, Sultan Bazar, Koti, Hyderabad. 3 V.Venkateshwar Reddy S/o.Chenna Kesava Reddy O/o. M.P.H.S., Malaria Sub Unit Office, Sub Unit-2, King Koti Hospital premises, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in not recognizing the Petitioner as the General Secretary of the Andhra Pradesh Public Health & Medical Employees' Union as per the Resolution of the General Body dated 20.01.2008 and on the other hand, recognizing the 3rd Respondent as the General Secretary of the Union and calling upon the Subordinate officers to deal with the 3rd Respondent, treating him as the General Secretary vide his Proceedings dated 02.06.2008 in Rc.No.6406/E.10 B/2008 as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to forthwith recognize the Petitioner as the General Secretary of the Andhra Pradesh Public Health & Medical Employees' Union and issue such other writ or order or direction as deemed fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.CH.SAMSON BABU Counsel for Respondents: G.P. for Medical Health & Family Welfare The Court made the following : ORDER: These two writ petitions are interlinked. Therefore, they are taken up together for disposal. B. Venkateswar Reddy is the petitioner in W.P.No.10906 of 2008 and N. Syamsundar is the petitioner in W.P.No.11774 of 2008. Brief facts of the case leading to filing of these two writ petitions are that the elections to A.P. Public Health and Medical Employees Union were held on 25.11.2007. B. Venkateswar Reddy was elected as General Secretary of the A.P. Public Health and Medical Employees Union and whereas G. Sanjeev Reddy MP (Rajya Sabha) was elected as President of A.P. Public Health and Medical Employees Union. The details of the other office bearers are not required to be mentioned, since their election is not the subject matter of these two writ petitions. After the declaration of results of the election, a communication was sent by G. Mohan Reddy, Election Officer, through letter dated 25.11.2007 to the office of the Director of Health, A.P. Hyderabad. There upon, the Director of Health, A.P. Hyderabad, issued proceedings in Rc.No.6406/E-10.B/2008 dated 03.05.2008. The text of the proceedings reads as hereunder. “In view of the communication received from the election officer APPH and MEU (3194) and Vice President A.P. State INTUC intimating that Sri G. Sanjeev Reddy, MP (Rajya Sabha) Sri B. Venkateswara Reddy MPHS DM & HO Hyderabad are elected as president and General Secretary of APPH and MEU (Regd.No.3194) in the election held on 25.11.2007. This is for favour of information to all the officers noted in the address entry for dealing with all union maters with the above union under their jurisdiction. This has got the approval of the Director of Health A.P. Hyderabad.” Some developments took place between 25.11.2007 and 03.05.2008 with regard to the post of General Secretary of A.P. Public Health and Medical Employees Union. A suit came to be instituted by Y. Mohan Rao, a defeated candidate, on the file of the V Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking declaration that the election held on 25.11.2007 for A.P. Public Health and Medical Employees Union as null and void. The said Y. Mohan Rao failed to secure any interim orders. The office of the Director of Health, A.P. Hyderabad issued memo dated 9.05.2008 vide Rc.No.6406/E10.B/2008 withdrawing the proceedings dated 3.05.2008. The text of the proceedings dated 9.05.2008 reads as hereunder. “With reference to the subject cited, all the Regional Director of Medical and Health Services & District Medical & Health Officers in the State are informed, not to entertain both the parties of the above union, till the disposal of the suit by the Hon’ble V Senior Civil Court, as per the I.D. Act of Trade Unions. They are further informed that the order issued by this office vide reference 1st cited are hereby cancelled till further orders. This has got the approval of Director of Health, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.” Assailing the memo dated 9.05.2008, V. Venkateswar Reddy filed W.P.No.10906 of 2008. N. Syamsunder filed W.P.No.11774 of 2008 seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Director of Health Government of Andhra Pradesh, A.P. Vaidya Vidhan Bhavan, in not recognizing him as the General Secretary of the Andhra Pradesh Public Health & Medical Employees’ Union as per resolution of the General Body dated 20.01.2008. It is his claim that the General Body of the Union, by resolution dated 20.1.2008 removed B. Venkateswar Reddy from the post of General Secretary of the union and in his place he has been co-opted as General Secretary of the union. For better appreciation I may refer para-5 of the affidavit filed in support of W.P.No.11774 of 2008, which reads as hereunder. “It is humbly submitted that the 2nd respondent should not have been issued these proceedings in as much as that time, the 3rd respondent ceased to be the General Secretary of the Union. It so happened that after his election, he started acting in a manner detrimental to the interest of the Union. The General Body took up the issue and sought to take action for his anti-union activities. By a Resolution of General Body held on 20.01.2008, he was removed as the General Secretary of the Union and in his place, I have been elected as the General Secretary of the Union, as per the Provisions contemplated in the bye laws of the Union viz. clauses 14 & 23. By the letter dated 21.01.2008, the acting President of the Union has intimated to the 1st respondent as well as the 2nd respondent about the changes that have taken place in the person holding the post of the General Secretary of the Union. The said letter was acknowledged by both the respondent Nos.1 and 2. They should have taken cognizance of this fact and they should not have entertained any further representation filed by the 3rd respondent recognizing him as the General Secretary of the Union Equally, I addressed the letters dated 23.02.2008 and 31.03.2008 to the 2nd respondent to recognize me as the General Secretary of the union by virtue of my election to the post, but there is no response whatsoever for the letters addressed by me.” The matter did not rest there. N. Syamsunder, petitioner in W.P.No.11774 of 2008 filed O.S.No.1593 of 2008 on the file of X Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and obtained injunction against B. Venkateswar Reddy, petitioner in W.P.No.10906 of 2008, restraining him from interfering with the activities of the Union. He also secured interim injunction as prayed for in I.A.No.198 of 2008 on 19.06.2008. That interim order also came to be made absolute. Thereafter, B. Venkateswar Reddy, the petitioner in W.P.No.10906 of 2008, stated to have filed application to set aside the ex parte order passed in I.A.No.198 of 2008. For the sake of convenience, B. Venkateswar Reddy, petitioner in W.P.No.10906 of 2008 and N. Syamsundar, the petitioner in W.P.No.11774 of 2008 hereinafter be referred to as the petitioner and the second respondent respectively. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the second respondent suppressed the interim order passed by this Curt in WPMP No.14209 of 2008 and filed a suit in the Civil Court and secured ad interim injunction, which amounts to suppression of material facts before the Civil Court, and therefore, the order secured by him from the Civil Court is nonest in the eye of law. In support of his submission, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in S.P. Changalavarya Naidu v. Jagannath, United India Insurance Company Ltd., v. Rajendra Singh, Ramchandra Singh v. Savitri Devi and R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala. A further submission has been advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the second respondent has not seriously contradicted in the counter affidavit with regard to the averments made in the writ affidavit as to suppression of the interim order passed by this Court in WPMP No.14209 of 2008 and securing ad interim injunction in civil Court, in which case, the interim order passed by the civil Court is nonest in the eye of law. In support of his submission reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Smt. Naseem Bano v. State of U.P., and the decision of this Court in V. Venkata Subrahmanyam v. District & Sessions Judge, Nellore. He would also contend that even in cases where disputed questions of facts are involved, writ Court has jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. In support of his submission reliance has been placed on a judgment of the Supreme Court in ABL International Limited v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Limited. Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submits that till the second respondent came to be impleaded as a party to W.P.No.10906 of 2008 he was not aware of the pendency of proceedings before this Court, and therefore, there was no occasion for him to know the interim orders passed by this Court in WPMP No.14209 of 2008. He would also submit that the suit was filed by the Union represented by the second respondent as General Secretary. There is a serious dispute with regard to conducting of General Body meeting on 20.01.2008. It is the contention of the second respondent that the General Body was convened on 20.01.2008 wherein the writ petitioner came to be unseated and in his place he was co-opted. There is a civil suit pending between the parties wherein the question of co-option of the second respondent is required to be examined. Evidence is required to be adduced with regard to the holding of General Body and removal of the writ petitioner from the post of General Secretary. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, it would suffice to say that the Director of Health has to give due recognition to the orders passed by the civil Court since the election of the second respondent and removal of the writ petitioner is the subject matter of the suit. The Director of Health, A.P. Hyderabad has to revise the proceedings with regard to recognition of the General Secretary of the Union as and when dispute between the parties set at rest by the civil Court. With the above observations, both the Writ Petitions are disposed of. No costs. _________________________ (B. Seshasayana Reddy, J.) 7th August, 2008 Js. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Medical & Health Dept. Secretariat Building, Hyderabad. 2 The Director of Health, Government of Andhra Pradesh, A.P. Vaidya Vidhan Bhavan, Sultan Bazar, Koti, Hyderabad. 3 2 CCs to G.P. for Medical, Health & Family Welfare, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad. (OUT) 4 2 CD copies.