IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH (30TH) DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P. Nos.3583, 4305 and 4497 of 2008, 3848 of 2009 and 197 of 2010 CRP No.3583 of 2008: Between: Togaracheti Ramamurthy … Petitioner And: MDY Ramamurthy & 4 others …Respondents CRP No.4305 of 2008: Between: Chittobotla Tyagaraya Sarma … Petitioner And: MDY Ramamurthy & 4 others …Respondents CRP No.4497 of 2008: Between: MDY Rama Moorthy … Petitioner And: Maganti Subramanyam & 4 others …Respondents CRP No.3848 of 2009: Between: Chittobotla Tyagaraya Sarma … Petitioner And: MDY Ramamurthy & 4 …Respondents CRP No.197 of 2010: Between: Togaracheti Ramamurthy … Petitioner And: MDY Ramamurthy & another …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P. Nos.3583, 4305 and 4497 of 2008, 3848 of 2009 and 197 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: CRP Nos.3583, 4305 and 4497 of 2008 arise out of the same order dated 30.06.2008 in OP No.18 of 2005 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Kurnool, wherein the said petition filed by the petitioner in CRP No.4497 of 2008 is the first respondent in other two revisions and Secretary of Akhila Bharatiya Karivena Nityaannadana Satram, Srisailam (for short ‘Satram’) under section 23 of the A.P. Societies Registration Act 2001 (for short ‘the Act’), for declaration that he is continuing as Secretary of the Satram with the executive committee as it exists for the purpose of administering the Satram and also for permanent injunction restraining the respondents in the OP and other members of the Committee from interfering with the management of the Satram by the petitioner, was disposed of holding that the petitioner in the OP is not entitled for the relief of declaration and consequential injunction prayed for and further holding that the claim of the 2nd respondent in the OP, who is the petitioner in CRP No.3583 of 2008 that he was elected as Secretary of the Satram along with other office bearers on 23.01.2005 was without any basis and contrary to the byelaws of the Satram and the provisions of the Act. By the said order, the learned District Judge, further appointed two Advocates i.e., Sri D. Yella Reddy and Sri C.Nagendranath of Kurnool as Commissioners to conduct the elections for the Satram following due procedure contemplated under byelaws of the Satram and the provisions of the Act within three months. 2. Arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and respondents in all the revision petitions are heard. For the sake of convenience, the parties to these revision petitions are referred to as they are arrayed in OP No.18 of 2005. Perused the record. 3. The averments of the petition are in brief as follows: The ‘Satram’ was registered under A.P. Societies Registration Act bearing No.47 of 1974. It has framed certain byelaws to govern internal administration. The petitioner was elected as Secretary on 11.03.2002 by the Executive Committee following the demise of Sri Annamraju Venkatasubba Rao, who was the then Secretary. The first respondent is the elected President of the Satram. The 2nd respondent was elected as Joint Secretary cum Treasurer on 13.02.1999, 3rd respondent is the Vice President and 4th respondent is the member of the Executive Committee co-opted on 11.03.2002. As the office of the Executive Committee expires by November 2004, a general body meeting was convened on 23.01.2005 at Srisailam for election of a new body. On that day, respondents 2 to 4 who formed into a group, resorted to pressure tactics supported by unruly elements brought by them and demanded that the 2nd respondent should represent the petitioner as Secretary and 3rd respondent should Be made as Vice President. The first respondent felt helpless to conduct the meeting, postponed the election to enable the committee to go through the byelaws and got them amended and thus as on the date of filing of the petition, old committee is in-charge of the administration till new body is elected. While so, to the surprise and dismay of the petitioner and other members, some news items appeared in the Telugu Daily Newspaper like Andhra Bhoomi, Andhra Jyothy and Vaartha local editions on 15.02.2005 and 16.02.2005 stating that a new committee was constituted for running Satram with the first respondent as its Chairperson, 2nd respondent as its Secretary, 3rd respondent as its Vice President and 4th respondent as its Joint Secretary cum Treasurer with 39 Committee members from various areas. The name of the first respondent was dragged into controversy by the respondents 2 and 4 in order to lend credence to their false claim. The petitioner therefore sought for declaration that the existing committee of the petitioner-Secretary is the only legally constituted body to administer the Satram and to declare the respondents 1 to 4 as imposters. 4. The first respondent filed counter stating in brief as follows: The petitioner is the Secretary of the Satram. The election was scheduled to be held on 23.01.2005 to elect a new body. It is true that the 2nd respondent demanded for substituting him as a Secretary in the place of the petitioner with the aid of his followers. There were good numbers of supporters to the petitioner seeking re-entrustment of the job of Secretary to the petitioner in view of his services and development of the Satram during his tenure. On 23.01.2005 due to unhealthy atmosphere created at the instance of the supporters of the 2nd respondent, election could not be held and hence the first respondent postponed the election. This respondent is not aware of the news items published in Telugu daily newspapers and he is not connected with the same. As no election was held on 23.01.2005, the petitioner continued to be a Secretary and the first respondent is working as President of the Satram. The petitioner is looking after all the branches of the Satram and he is having custody of all relevant records including minutes book. On 23.01.2005 this respondent recorded minutes of the general body meeting to the effect that it was not possible to conduct election in the unruly and unhealthy atmosphere. The petitioner, being Secretary, has to take further steps by fixing schedule for fresh elections. It is felt by the present body that the byelaws of the Satram are not serving the changing needs and amendment for the existing byelaws is necessary. The process of amendment of the bye-laws is with the new body. This respondent is unnecessarily added as a party to the petition. 5. The 2nd respondent filed counter contending in brief as follows: The petitioner was only nominated to the post of Secretary owing to his undue influence and he was not elected to the post by the general body members. All the members of the Satram are against the petitioner. It is false that on 23.01.2005 respondents formed as a group and resorted to pressure tactics supported by unruly elements. On that day, the petitioner having realized that he would be defeated if election is conducted, some how managed the postponement of the elections with the help of unsocial elements. Though, all the members present requested the petitioner to conduct elections, the petitioner was adamant and took unilateral decision to postpone the elections, just to hold the post of Secretary for some more time. Some of the members questioned the petitioner to show accounts and minutes book, for which the petitioner refused and therefore, the members lost confidence on the petitioner. On the advise of all the members and the persons interested in Satram, the Vice President of the Satram, to safeguard the well being of the Satram, used his powers as per law and declared the respondents in the positions to run the Satram. 6. The respondents 3 and 4 filed memo adopting the counter of 2nd respondent. The 5th respondent filed counter contending in brief as follows: It is false that the first respondent is the elected working President of the Satram. There is no such office as per the byelaws. The petitioner could not satisfy the members of the general body meeting on 23.01.2005 by producing up to date list of valid members. He has not issued proper notice to all the members. So the elders available at the general body meeting had a discussion with all the groups and tried to select an agreed list of the office bearers of the Committee. When the first respondent was reading out the said list, the petitioner and some of his members walked out of the meeting. The petitioner failed to make proper arrangements for the smooth conduct of the meeting, because he was continuing as general secretary even after his term was over and conducting the affairs of the Satram as if it is his personal property. The petitioner has opened accounts of the Satram in his own name and operating the same contrary to the provisions in the byelaws. The petitioner wanted to continue as General Secretary for ever. 7. During enquiry, the petitioner was examined as PW.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.38 were marked on behalf of the petitioner. RWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.6 were marked on behalf of the respondents. 8. The learned District Judge framed the following points for consideration. 1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for declaration that he is entitled to continue as Secretary of the Akhila Bharatiya Brahmana Karivena Nityannadana Satram, Srisailam along with the existing body as on 21.03.2005? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for declaration that the claim of respondents 2 to 4 and 39 committee members as representing the Satram as illegal and for consequential perpetual injunction restraining them from interfering with the management of the Satram by the petitioner? 9. On a consideration of the entire material on record and by detailed order, the learned District Judge, held that the petitioner is not entitled for declaration and injunction prayed for and also held that the claim of the 2nd respondent that he was elected as Secretary of the Satram along with other office bearers on 23.01.2005 is without any basis and contrary to the byelaws of the Satram and also provisions of the Act. The learned District Judge, further considered it appropriate to appoint the Commissioners for conducting elections invoking the provisions of Section 23 of the Act, which enables the Court to pass appropriate orders in the interest of society and therefore appointed two practicing Advocates of Kurnool Bar i.e., Sri D. Yella Reddy and Sri C.Nagendranath, as Commissioners to conduct elections for electing office bearers of the Satram following due procedure contemplated in the byelaws of Satram and the provisions of the Act, within three months. It was further directed that the petitioner and respondents shall place all relevant records of the Satram before the Advocate Commissioners at Kurnool to enable them to prepare list of members of the Satram and also to cooperate with the Advocate Commissioners in smooth conducting of the elections. The petitioner and respondents were also further directed not to withdraw any amount from the bank accounts of the Satram except the amount for maintaining Satram till new body is elected. 7. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner in OP No.18 of 2005 filed CRP No.4497 of 2008, 2nd respondent in OP filed CRP No.3583 of 2008 and 3rd respondent in OP, filed CRP No.4305 of 2008. 8. In pursuance of the orders of the learned District Judge, the two Advocate Commissioners issued notice dated 10.08.2009 to both parties, wherein it is stated that they have given their decision with regard to the objections submitted by both the parties. The voters list prepared by the Commissioner and copy of their decision was also enclosed to the notice. In the said decision, the Advocate Commissioners have stated that after going through the records produced by the petitioner and the 2nd respondent and the written objections and oral submissions made by both parties, they concluded that the objections raised by the petitioner, respondents 1 and 3 are beyond the scope of the commission warrant and therefore, the voters list prepared by the Commissioners on 28.05.2009 holds good and election will be conducted based on the said voters list prepared and published by them. The Commissioners further requested all the parties to attend the general body meeting to be held on 16.08.2009 in the premises of Kurnool District Bar Association to discuss further course of election process and to fix election schedule. Aggrieved by the said notice, 3rd respondent in the OP filed CRP No.3848 of 2009. 9. The petitioner in OP filed IA No.1419 of 2009 under Section 151 CPC in OP No.18 of 2005 requesting the Court to quash the above decision dated 10.08.2009 of the Advocate Commissioners. The respondents 1 and 2 in OP No.18 of 2005 alone were impleaded as respondents in IA No.1419 of 2009. The first respondent reported no counter, but the 2nd respondent filed a counter, opposing the application. The learned District Judge by order dated 11.12.2009 allowed the application and set aside the decision dated 10.08.2009 of the Advocate Commissioners insofar as it relates to finalization of list of members of the Satram and the Advocate Commissioners were directed to prepare voters list of the Satram afresh after verifying day book, ledger and bank pass books of the Satram to ascertain payment of membership fee by each member. The petitioner and respondents were directed to cooperate with the Advocate Commissioners by producing the relevant documents, including the bank account passbooks of the Satram with regard to membership fee before the Advocate Commissioners. The Commissioners were further directed to conclude the entire process of the election within two months. Aggrieved by the same, the 2nd respondent in the OP and also in IA No.1419 of 2009 filed CRP No.197 of 2010. 10. As all the five revision petitions are inter-related and arise out of the same order in OP No.18 of 2005 and pursuant thereto, they are all heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 11. It is not disputed that the Satram is a society registered under Societies registration Act (Act 21 of 1960) on 28.06.1974 with Registration No.47 of 1974, with registered office at Srisailam and branches at several places. The Satram was started with a noble object of providing food (annadanam) to the pilgrims visiting Srisailam, besides rendering other religious services as set out in aims and objects enumerated in the byelaws of the society. The Satram is to be managed by governing body, which is elected by the executive committee members, who in turn are elected by the general body members. The period of office of the governing body is for five years and the last election for the governing body was held on 13.02.1999, wherein one Subbaiah Sastry was elected as President, A.V.Subba Rao as Secretary, Chittibhotla Thyagaraja Sarma-3rd respondent in OP as Vice President, and Togaracheti Rama Murthy-2nd respondent in the OP, as Joint Secretary-cum- Treasurer. Sri AV Subbarao is said to have died in February 2002 and Subbaiah Shastry died in about 2003. The petitioner in OP, Sri MDY Ramamurthy was elected as Secretary on 10.03.2002 consequent upon the death of the then Secretary A V Subbarao. The first respondent M.Subramanyam is said to have been made as working President, on the demise of Subbaiah Sastry. The term of the office of the governing body expired on 13.02.2004. A general body meeting of the Satram was called to be held on 23.01.2005 for the purpose of electing the executive committee members and governing body members. The said meeting was not concluded and it ended abruptly. Subsequently, there was a publication in Eenadu and other Telugu daily news papers on 15.02.2005 to the effect that new body was elected with the first respondent as Chairperson, 2nd respondent as Secretary, 3rd respondent as Vice President and 4th respondent as Joint Secretary cum Treasurer, together with 39 committee members. The petitioner got issued another publication in the newspapers on 16.02.2005 refuting the contents of the publication dated 15.02.2005 as false and misleading. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present application in OP No.18 of 2005 under section 23 of the Societies Registration Act, seeking a declaration that he is continuing as Secretary of the Satram with the executive committee as exists and also for permanent injunction restraining the respondents 2 to 4 and 39 committee members, from interfering with the management of the petitioner as Secretary of the Satram. 12. According to the petitioner, the proposed election could not take place in the meeting held on 23.01.2005 on account of the unruly behaviour of some of the members at the instance of the respondents 2 to 4, who wanted to grab the management. The respondents 2 to 4 on the other hand, would allege that the petitioner faced with the prospect of losing election for lack of support, managed to postpone the election with the help of some unsocial elements, unheeding to the request of several members, who came from different places to conduct the election. 13. During enquiry before the District Court, both the parties indulged in a blame game accusing one another as being responsible for the postponement of the election. Both parties have also traded allegations against each other accusing one another of having criminal background and indulging in illegal activities. Much of the evidence pertains to the allegations and counter allegations made against one another and the learned District Judge has dealt with the same at length with reference to the evidence available on record. It is considered futile exercise now to go into the merits or otherwise of the allegations and counter allegations traded against one another by both parties and to ascertain the causes for postponement of the election on 23.01.2005 and to identify the persons responsible for the same at this length of time, as the said exercise would not serve any useful purpose insofar as the institution is concerned. Admittedly, the Satram, which made a humble beginning with the donations collected from the public for a noble cause has over the period of years, grown up into a big institution of repute owing to the large scale public patronage and has, by now established several branches at various places of religious significance to serve the pilgrims visiting those places. The interests of the institution, that too, ‘annadana satram’ like the present one, have got to be safeguarded and cannot be allowed to deteriorate and ultimately perish on account of the acts of commission or omission on the part of the individuals, who happen to manage the affairs of the institution for the time being. 14. When the term of office of the governing body is fixed to be five years, on the expiry of the said period, new body has got to be elected in accordance with the byelaws and all concerned, particularly those in the management of the affairs of the society, are duty bound to facilitate the conduct of the elections in a fair and smooth manner. It is unfortunate that, though the term of the office of the governing body, which was elected on 13.02.1999, has expired on 13.02.2004, the general body meeting was not called till 23.01.2005 to elect a new body and even on that day, no election could took place and the blame game resorted to by the parties has resulted in the present litigation, which in turn further delayed the process of election of new governing body by another five years. Both the parties have to share the blame equally for the mess into which the noble institution has been thrown instead of blaming each other. 14. The petitioner seeks a declaration that he shall be continued as Secretary of the Satram, with the existing executive committee to administer the affairs of the Satram and also for permanent injunction. It cannot for a moment be disputed that the ultimate authority vests with the members of the general body, who shall elect the executive committee members, who in turn would elect the governing body. Section 9 of the Act contemplates that every year the society shall, within fifteen days from the date on which the general body meeting was held, furnish a list to the Registrar of Societies, which shall contain the names and addresses of the members of the Managing Committee and Officers entrusted with the management of the affairs of the Society. Section 11 of the Act prescribes that every society shall keep a register of members and duly entering those particulars together with specimen signatures. The evidence on record reveals that the above statutory requirements have not been complied with. When once the term of office of the existing governing body with the petitioner as a Secretary, has admittedly expired on 13.02.2004, and the byelaws prescribed that office bearers be elected once in five years, the question of granting declaration of the nature as prayed for, which has the effect of continuing the petitioner and other office bearers for ever, does not arise. The learned District Judge has therefore rightly rejected the relief of declaration and permanent injunction sought for by the petitioner. 15. The respondents 2 to 4 claimed that the move of the petitioner to postpone the election on 23.01.2005 was thwarted by the members present and they elected a new body with the first respondent as Chairperson, 2nd respondent as Secretary, 3rd respondent as Vice President and 4th respondent as Joint Secretary cum Treasurer together with 39 committee members. As rightly observed by the learned District Judge, there is no specific averment in the counter filed by the 2nd respondent that he was elected as Secretary in the election held on 23.01.2005. In fact, 2nd respondent, who was examined as RW.1 curiously, deposed that he does not remember that such a plea was raised in the counter and makes a vain attempt to throw the blame on the counsel, who drafted the counter by saying that the counter was prepared without his consent and knowledge. According to RW.1, his name as Secretary was proposed by one Keshava Sarma of Nandyal and it was seconded by the 5th respondent. The evidence of 5th respondent, who is examined as RW.4, is silent about his seconding the name of 2nd respondent for the post of Secretary. Kesava Sarma, who is said to have proposed the name of 2nd respondent for the said post, is not examined at all. On proper appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned District Judge has rightly considered it unsafe to place reliance on the testimony of RWs.2 and 3. The evidence on record did not establish the claim of the respondents about the election of a new body on 23.01.2005 with 2nd respondent as Secretary. 16. Thus when the term of office of the existing body has expired long back on 13.02.2004 and the belated effort made to elect a new body on 23.01.2005 did not fructify and the claim of the respondents that a new body was elected on 23.01.2005 was found to be baseless and since the declaration and injunction sought for by the petitioner to continue him as Secretary along with the office bearers cannot be granted, the learned District Judge, keeping in view the paramount need to safeguard the interest of the institution and protect the public interest involved therein, was justified in taking recourse to the provisions of section 23 of the Act, to devise a mechanism for conducting election to the society, which are long over due. 17. Section 23 of the Act states that in the event of any dispute arising among the Committee or the members of the Society in respect of any matter relating to the affairs of the society, any member may proceed with the dispute under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1966 or may file an application in the District Court concerned and the said Court shall after necessary enquiry, pass such order as it may deem