IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE PRESENT The Honourable Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah WRIT PETITION Nos. 7639 OF 2004 AND 24352 OF 2004 WRIT PETITION No. 7639 OF 2004 BETWEEN: 1. Nirmala Kale W/o P.R.Kale, aged about 65 years, Occ: House-wife, R/o H.No.30-15, Tirumalanagar, Kanajiguda, Secunderabad. 2. John Sushil Kale S/o P.R.Kale, aged about 36 years, Occ: Engineer, R/o H.No.30-15, Tirumalanagar, Kanajiguda, Secunderabad. …Petitioners And 1. District Registrar, Hyderabad & Registrar of Societies, Office of the District Registrar of Assurances, Nizam Shahi Road, Hyderabad. 2. Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, N.B.K.Estates, Golconda X Roads, Hyderabad. 3. The Registrar of Societies, Office of The Commissioner & Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, A.P., Hyderabad. 4. The Society of Trustees of Indigenous Churches in India (Regn.No.114/1971), represented by its Governing Body, HEBRON, Musheerabad Road, Golkond X Roads, Hyderabad. 5. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue (Regn.-II) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, represented byits Additional Secretary. 6. R.Devasahayam S/o Abraham R/o Hebron Church premises, Golcond X Roads, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. (Respondent No.6 is impleaded as per Court order dt.30-7- 2004 in WPMP.No.16980/2004). 7. Bro.K.Martin S/o Late Sri Bro Solomon aged 60 years, Occ: Member of Hebron Church, Retd. Chief Engineer (P.R. Department), R/o 17-119/49, “BETHANY”, Wesley Teachers Colony, North Lalaguda Post, Secunderabad. 8. Bro.B.Balaram S/o Late B.Ksitaiah, aged 60 years, Occ: Member of Hebron Church, Retd. Chief Accounts Officer (P.R.Department) H.No.1-1-16/4, Jawahar Nagar, RTC X Road, Hyderabad. 9. Bro.R.Sambamurthy Nathaniel S/o Late N.Rangaswami, aged 63 years, Member of Hebron Church, Retd. Senior Auditor (Defence Accounts), 502 Parkview Apartments, West Marredpally, Secunderabad. (Respondents 7 to 9 are impleaded as per Court order dated 24-09-2005 in W.P.M.P.No.22559/2004). 10. The Indigenous Churches in India Trust Hebron, Golconda Cross Road, Hyderabad. 11. Bro.K.Phillip S/o not know to the petitioner, aged about 83 years, occ: self proclaimed Governing Body Member of 4th respondent society & Self proclaimed Trustee of 7th respondent Trust, C/o Hebron Golconda Cross Road, Hyderabad. 12. Bro,G.T.Bejamine S/o Thirumalaiah, aged about 84 years, Occ: Self proclaimed Governing Body Member of 4th respondent Society & Self proclaimed Trustee of 7th respondent Trust, C/o Hebron, Golconda Cross Road, Hyderabad. 13. Bro.Theodore Reginald S/o not known to the petitioner, aged about 60 years, Occ: Self proclaimed Governing Body Member of 4th respondent Society & Self proclaimed Trustee of 7th respondent Trust, C/o Hebron, Golconda Cross Road, Hyderabad. 14. Bro. F.C.S.Peter s/o Not Known to the petitioner aged about 57 years, Occ: Self proclaimed Governing Body Member of 4th respondent Society & Self proclaimed Trustee of 7th respondent Trust, C/o Hebron, Golconda Cross Road, Hyderabad. 15. Bro.Paul Sudhakar S/o not known to the petitioner, aged about 50 years, Occ: Self proclaimed Governing Body Member of 4th respondent Society & Self proclaimed Trustee of 7th respondent Trust, C/o Hebron, Golconda Cross Road, Hyderabad. (Respondents 10 to 15 are impleaded as per Court order dated: 24-9-2004 in W.P.M.P.No.21570/2004). …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 declare bye-law No.3 relating to membership i.e., Article 3 of Articles of Association of the 4th respondent society, as illegal, null and void and inconsistent or contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001 and consequently issue a Write more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus for directing the appropriate authority among The Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, the District Registrar and the Registrar of Societies to direct 4th respondent society to amend its bye-law No.3 (Article 3) relating to membership, so as to bring it inconformity with the Act, 2001 by incorporating the eligibility criteria and scrutinize the membership applications of the petitioners with reference to such criteria and to admit the petitioners as members or pass speaking orders in the event of rejection or alternatively to deregister the 4th respondent society B ) By holding the action of the respondents 1 to 3 in not exercising their jurisdiction vested in and directing the petitioners to approach other authorities under Section 23 of Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001 which has no application in the present case and to set aside letter No,.SOC/25779/2004 dated 03-04-2004 issued by respondent No.3 to both the petitioners separately as bad, illegal, irrational, misconceived, non application of mind, unconstitutional, besides being violative of the said act. C) And/or direct the 5th respondent to invoke its powers under Section 31 of Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001 and to direct the 4th respondent society to bring its bye-laws more particularly bye-law No.3 relating to membership inconformity with the said Act, 2001. D) To issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus. For the Petitioners: Mr.C.Kodanda Ram, Advocate For the Respondents 1 to 3 : G.P. for Co-operation. For the Respondents 4, 10 to 15: Mr.D.V.Sitharam Murthy, For the Respondent No.5 : G.P., for Revenue. For the Respondent No.6 : Mr.J.Chandraiah, Advocate. For the Respondents 7 to 9 : Mr.Bathula Raj Kiran, Advocate. WRIT PETITION No. 24352 OF 2004 BETWEEN: 1. Bro.K.Martin s/o Late Bro.K.Solomon, 60 years, Member of Hebron Church, Retired Chief Engineer (PR.Dept) Resident of H.No.17-119, Bethan Wesley Teachers Colony, North Lalaguda Post, Secunderabad. 2. Bro.R.Sambamurthy Mathanial, Member of Hebon Church C/o Hebron Church, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. …Petitioners And 1. The Registrar of Societies, Office of the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2. The Society of Trustees of Indigenous Churches in India, (Regd.No.114/1971) Rep.by its Governing Body, Hebron, Musheerabad, 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, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents not to recognize any other person other than Bro.K.Habekkuk as Permanent principal Trustee of the society of Trustees of Indigenous Churches in India Regd.No.114/1971. For the Petitioners : Mr.Bathula Raj Kiran, Advocate. For the Respondents : G.P., for Co-operation. The Court made the following : COMMON ORDER: Writ Petition No.7639 of 2004 is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus, seeking the following reliefs: 1. To declare bye-law No.3 relating to membership i.e., Article 3 of Articles of Association of the 4th respondent society as illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001 (for short the Act, 2001); 2. To direct the Registrar of Societies to direct 4th respondent society to amend its bye-law No.3 (Article 3) relating to membership, so as to bring it inconformity with the Act, 2001 by incorporating the eligibility criteria and scrutinize the membership applications of the petitioners with reference to such criteria and to admit them as members; 3. To declare the action of the respondents 1 to 3 in not exercising their jurisdiction vested in and directing the petitioners to approach other authorities under Section 23 of the Act, 2001 as illegal and to set-aside the latter dated 3-4-2004 issued by the Registrar of Societies (3rd respondent) as illegal; 4. To direct the State of Andhra Pradesh (5th respondent to invoke its powers under Section 31 of the Act, 2001 and to direct the 4th respondent society to bring its bye-laws more particularly bye-law No.3 relating to membership inconformity with the Act, 2001. Writ Petition No.24352 of 2004 is filed to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents not to recognize any other person other than Brother K.Hebakkuk as permanent Principal Trustee of the second respondent Society. Admittedly, none of the petitioners in both the writ petitions are the members of the said society. The petitioners in W.P.No.7639 of 2004 are seeking admission as members of the society. The petitioners in W.P.No.24352 of 2004 are also not members of the said society, but they stated that the original founder and managing trustee Brother Bakth Singh became sick and subsequently passed away in September, 2000 and the said Bakth Singh entrusted the management of the society to Brother K.N.Agustine and he too become sick and he gave authorization letter to Brother K.Hebakkuk on 22-4-1999, who is the senior most member of God Servant of Hebron Church. Therefore, said Hebakkuk was acting as a principal Trustee of the said society since 22-4-1999 and became permanent principal trustee after the death of Brother Bakth Singh on 17-9-2000. Therefore, Brother Hebbakkuk alone has to be recognized as the principal trustee of the said society and no other person can be recognized as a principal trustee. It is the case of the petitioners in W.P.No.7639 of 2004 that they are the believers of Lord Jesus Christ. The second petitioner is the son of the first petitioner. The 4th respondent society was registered as a public society on 22-2-1971 under the provisions of The Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Public Societies Registration Act, 1350 Fasli (for short the Act, 1350 F), bearing registration No.114/1971. By Section 32(1) of the Act, 2001, the Act, 1350 F., was repealed, but the action taken under the Act, 1350 F., is however saved by Section 32(2) of the Act, 2001. The 4th respondent society was registered in 1971 for the purpose of reorganizing the movement of the indigenous churches in India, and with a view to regulate and supervise the churches, a central organization was required. The society was registered for availing the benefits which are available to a registered society like entitlement to acquire, hold and dispose of property, to enter into contracts, no personal liability, opening of bank accounts, income tax benefits etc. The said indigenous church movement had gained further momentum and thousands of indigenous churches existing in India and at various countries connected with and under the control, supervision and purview of the 4th respondent society. It is stated that the petitioners contributed cash, property and donated a van to the society. After the ill-health of Brother Bakth Singh, the administration of the society has came to an impasse and deadlock and its affairs are in shambles. There is utter disorder, anarchy, divisions in the indigenous churches on some pretext or other, gross mismanagement inter alia, wherein properties worth crores of rupees have not been registered in the name of the 4th respondent society in violation of bye-law No.9(a), misappropriation and diversion of power, funds and property, disobedience to authority, total arbitrariness, dictatorial tendencies, lack of democratic and transparent functioning in the affairs of the society, breach of bye laws, lack of answerability, abdication of responsibility, perpetual power struggle, self styled individuals claiming themselves to be founders of the indigenous churches, discrimination and gross irregularities, all of which are totally opposed to the public policy and public interest. It is stated that as per the bye-laws of the society, all powers have been vested in the principal trustee Brother Bakth Singh, who passed away in September, 2000. With his demise, the bye-laws have become non functional and they require to be amended. Therefore, it became necessary for the petitioners herein to be admitted as members in order to keep a watch on the affairs of the society and to bring in a thorough reformation and to protect the interest of the society. It is stated that the petitioners wanted to implead in the pending Original Petition and they filed I.A.No.2163 of 2002 in O.P.No.878 of 2000 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, but the said I.A., was dismissed on the ground that the petitioners are not the members of the society. They filed C.R.P.No.4447 of 2003 on the file of this Court and the said C.R.P., was also dismissed in December, 2003. Therefore, the petitioners have made formal applications for membership on 2-1-2004 and 4-1-2004 to the society followed by the reminders, but the society refused to accept the applications of the petitioners. The 4th respondent society was initially registered under the Act, 1350 F., and the bye-laws have been framed under the said Act and have been termed as Articles of the society. The State having noted the various omissions and flaws in the legislation relating to registration of public societies, enacted the Act, 2001. Various provisions intended to infuse responsible conduct on the part of the management of public societies have been incorporated in this Act. The Act, 2001 required the bye-laws to be changed. Section 5 of the Act stipulates the provisions required to be set out in the bye-laws. According to Section 5 of the Act, 2001, the bye-laws shall contain provisions in respect of membership of the society i.e., eligibility, admission, withdrawal and termination etc. It is stated that the contents of the bye-laws of the society registered under the Act, 1350 F., must be inconformity with Section 5 of the Act, 2001 and Section 5 of the Act is mandatory as provided by Section 32(2) of the Act, 2001. It is stated that Article 3 of the society do not conform to Section 5 of the Act and the bye-law do not contain any conditions with regard to eligibility, admission etc., of members to the society, but has left them to the whims and fancies of the governing body, which is nothing but arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory and cannot stand the test of law in view of the arbitrary and unbridled discretion conferred on the governing body without any guidelines for admission of the members. The governing body tend to freeze the membership of the society in order to create a monopoly for the existing members and they are not allowing any new members to be admitted. There are only 42 members on its rolls so far, though the society has two thousand churches connected with it and under its control and supervision and about a lakh believers in them. It is stated that a public religious society cannot close its doors without allowing participation to like minded and interested religious persons. The society cannot close its doors, but can admit persons without prescribing any eligibility criteria and without having any guidelines. Therefore, Section 5 of the Act, 2001 provides that the bye-laws should contain the criteria for admission, eligibility etc., for membership of the society. In view of the in action on the part of the governing body of the society, the petitioners approached the respondents 1 to 3 vide their representations in March, 2004 to intervene and hold the inaction of the of the governing body of the society and to compel the said society to fall in line with the provisions of the Act, 2001 by incorporating the eligibility, admission, withdrawal and termination etc., in its bye-law relating to membership and scrutinize their membership applications with reference to said criteria and consequently pass speaking orders. But, the Registrar of Societies vide his letter dated 3-4-2004 informed the petitioners to approach the District Court under Section 23 of the Act, 2001. The Registrar or the Registrar General has a statutory public duty cast upon him to examine the bye-law of the society with reference to the provisions of the Act, 2001 and if they are found to be contrary to or inconsistent with the said provisions, to direct the society to bring its bye-laws in line with the provisions of the Act, 2001 or alternatively to deregister the society. The third respondent by the proceedings dated 3-4-2004 directed the petitioners to approach the Civil Court under Section 23 of the Act, 2001, but under Section 23 of the Act, a member of the society alone is entitled to approach under the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act or may file an application in the District Court concerned in respect of a matter relating to the affairs of the society. As the petitioners are not the members of the society, they are not entitled to seek any relief under Section 23 of the Act and therefore, they have no remedy and in the said circumstances, it became necessary for them to approach this Court, seeking a direction against the respondents to take appropriate steps for amendment of the bye-laws of the society inconformity with Section 5 of the Act, 2001. A counter has been filed by the society, stating that the general body of the society at its meeting held on 23-3-2004 passed a resolution, dissolving the society of trustees of Indigenous Churches in India and further resolved to transfer its assets and liabilities to the Indigenous Churches in India Trust. The society was dissolved and the Indigenous Churches in India Trust (for short the Trust) was constituted on 24-3-2004. The Trust was duly registered with registration No.46/2004 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Chikkadpalli on 24-3-2004. At present, the Trust is in management of the affairs of the erstwhile Society of Trusts of Indigenous Churches in India. Hence, the Writ Petition itself became infructuous. However, it is stated that the petitioners have failed to set out violation of any fundamental or legal right or even legally protected interest and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. The society was purely a private religious body. It lies within its competence to restrict membership on the basis of the religious tenets professed by the said society. The same cannot be called in question in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Even otherwise the erstwhile Article 3 of the Articles of Association of the Society, which relates to admission of members is legal, valid and it is not inconsistent or contrary to any of the provisions of the Act, 2001. The Act, 2001 do not specify or set out qualifications or requirements for membership. Section 15 of the Act enumerates disqualification of members of a committee. As such, Article 3 does not in any manner contravene any of the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the question of issuing directions to respondents 1 to 3 to compel the 4th respondent society to amend its bye-laws does not arise. Any such direction would contravene the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(c) and also Article 26 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable and no mandamus can be issued against a private religious body not vested with any public policy and not concerned with discharge of any public function. The petitioners failed to point out any violation of law. The society has been dissolved with effect from 23-4-2004 and it is not in existence and therefore, the question of issuing any direction to the society does not arise. It is further stated that batch of civil cases were filed against the society, in which, the petitioners prayed to implead them in O.P.No.878 of 2000 and the said petition was dismissed, against which, they filed C.R.P.No.4447 of 2003 and the said Revision was also dismissed. It is stated that the society was not connected with the Churches established prior to 1970. The petitioners may be a worshipper in any of the indigenous churches, but for that reason, they could not have sought membership in the said society. As per bye-law No.3 of the society, any person who is a believer in Christ can voluntarily join the society, but with the approval of the governing body. However, the grievance of the petitioners no longer survives as the society itself stood dissolved. The contribution made by the petitioners for the purpose of construction of indigenous churches namely Philadelphia Prayer House at Venkatapuram, Secunderabad was recovered by them by filing a suit O.S.No.284 of 2001 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy (North & East). However, the said society is no way connected with the aforesaid contribution and recovery of money. It is stated that all the allegations made against the society by the petitioners are absolutely false and all the allegations have been denied. Even after the death of Bakth Singh, the affairs of the society were carried on as per its Articles of Association and all the accounts were periodically audited. When Bakth Singh became ill, the original Articles were amended and the powers stood vested in the governing body. Therefore, it is incorrect to state that the bye-laws have become non-functional after the demise of Bakth Singh. It is stated that the bye-laws of the erstwhile society were not in any manner inconsistent with or contrary to the provisions of the Act. The society was purely a private body and it does not discharge any public function, as such no writ lie against a private body. However, it cannot be said that the bye-law No.3 was without any eligible criteria. The petitioners cannot call in question the power of a body to regulate, restrict or even prohibit membership to it. It is incorrect to state that the petitioners are left without remedy. However, the petitioners failed to establish any right which can be enforceable or which can be appropriately remedied by the Constitutional Court to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to take such steps in the matter of determination of eligibility criteria for membership of the society as required under Section 5 of the Act, 2001. The right to membership in a body can be subject to reasonable restriction. The writ petition was filed on 21-4-2004 and it was admitted on 23-4-2004 and the W.P.M.P., was posted after vacation. However, on 5-5-2004, this Court granted interim direction, directing the third respondent-Registrar of the Societies not to register the Trust until further orders. As the respondents stated that the society itself was dissolved and the Trust was formed, the petitioners filed W.P.M.P.No.14850 of 2004 to add one more prayer in the writ petition to declare the notice dated 3-3-2004 issued by Brother K.Phillips as Chairman and Convener of the meeting and its consequential proceedings including the meeting held on 23-3-2004 at 11.00 A.M., at Patmos Prayer House, Puranapool, Hyderabad under the Chairmanship of Brother K.Phillip, governing body member as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and consequentially set aside the resolution passed in the meeting dated 23-3-2004. The said application was opposed by the society on the ground that the cause of action is totally changed and therefore, the amendment of the prayer cannot be allowed. The prayer in the writ petition is only to amend the bye-law of the society inconformity with section 5 of the Act, but whereas the prayer sought to be added is to declare the resolution of the society dissolving the said society and to transfer the assets and liabilities of the said society to the Trust as illegal. I am of the opinion that as the cause of action is different and new, the petitioners are not entitled to seek the amendment of prayer. The amendment is beyond the scope of the writ petitioner and pleadings are differed. If the said notice issued for convening a general body meeting and the resolution passed by the general body on 23-3-2004 dissolving the society and creating a Trust is illegal or contrary, they can challenge the same in any appropriate proceedings if they are entitled to do so in accordance with law, but the said prayer cannot be allowed to be added in this writ petition. Accordingly, W.P.M.P.No.14850 of 2004 is liable to be dismissed. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently submits that the writ filed by the petitioners against the action of the 4th respondent society and to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to amend the bye-law of the society in conformity with Section 5 of the Act, 2001 is maintainable and unless the bye-law is amended, their right to get the admission in the society is deprived and therefore, the writ petition is maintainable. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that no statutory right or any legal right of the petitioners has been violated and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable and it cannot