Dismissed

Mrs Nirmala Johnson, v. Csi Rayalseema Diocese

Andhra Pradesh HC10 Jun 2021CRP/534/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 by church members challenging the conduct of a Diocesan Council meeting. The Court found the petitioners had suppressed material facts by participating in the elections they sought to invalidate, rendering the petition devoid of merits regardless of the trial court's failure to exercise jurisdiction on other proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed with no costs awarded.

Mrs Nirmala Johnson, Vs Csi Rayalseema Diocese — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.534 of 2021

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioners aggrieved by the non interference of the lower court, though temporary injunction was granted against the respondents vide order dated 18.11.2016 in I.A.No.812/2016 in O.S.No.292/2016 read with I.A.No.586 of 2019 read with CF No.1050, dated 21.12.2020 I.A.No. /2020 (unnumbered) still pending enquiry in O.S.No.292/2016 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tadipathri of Ananthapur District.

¶5

Heard Sri Jitendra Kanyalur, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for Sri Nagaraju Naguru, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶6

The case of the petitioners is that they along with two (2) others are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.292 of 2016 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tadipathri of Ananthapur District. Petitioner No.1 is the Correspondent of CSI Elementary School, Senegalagudur, Putlur Mandal, Thadiparthy Taluq, Ananthapuram District. Petitioner No.2 is the Chairman, CSI Arogyavaram District, Kalikiri CSI Church, Kalikiri Village & Mandal, Chittoor District. Petitioners claim to be the members of the CSI Rayalseema Diocese-respondent No.1. They are eligible voters in Diocesan Council. Names of the petitioners are mentioned in the proceedings given by the 1^st defendant on

¶7

¶8

27.09.2010. The renewal of membership of members is automatic and the petitioners shall be treated as Central Board Appointees as per the Rules. But the defendants 1 & 2 have not included the names of the petitioners in the voters list for the Triennium period 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-2019 for electing members of the CSI RD Diosesan Council at the 31^st Diocesan Council meeting scheduled from 07.11.2016 to 09.11.2016 at CSI RD Compound at Kadapa. Apart from the petitioners, nearly about 40 members of the eligible members were not given the right of voting and 40 members were given wrong voting right.

¶9

Therefore, the petitioners filed O.S.No.292/2016 to declare the voters list prepared by the defendants for the Triennium of 31^st of Diocesan Council period 2016 to 2019, for the election of the members of the CSI RD Diocesan Council as null and void; consequently declare the notification issued by the defendants for conducting the 31^st Diocesan Council meeting of CSI RD Diocesan Council during the period 07.11.2016 to 09.11.2016 at CSI RD Compound at Kadapa as null and void; to grant Permanent Injunction restraining the defendants from conducting the 31^st Diocesan Council meeting of CSI RD during the period 07.11.2016 to 09.11.2016 in the suit scheduled premises; to grant Mandatory Injunction directing the defendant Nos.1 to 4 to include the plaintiff Nos.1 & 2 as voters in the voters list for the Triennium period 2016-19 of CSI RD, Kadapa and also to give right to vote to all the correspondents to the Schools and Colleges under CSI RD; to declare that defendant Nos.6 and 7 are not eligible to contest any posts in the diocesan council membership of Diocesan Council during the Triennium period 2016-19.

¶10

¶11

Along with the suit, the petitioners also filed I.A.No.812/2016 for grant of temporary injunction restraining the respondents from conducting the 31^st Diocesan Council meeting from 07.11.2016 to 09.11.2016 in the CSI Compound Kadapa or any place pending disposal of the suit. The trial court granted temporary injunction on 18.11.2016 and the same was confirmed in C.M.A.No.12 of 2016 dated 08.03.2017 by the learned VI Additional District Judge, Gooty.

¶12

In spite of the Temporary injunction orders on the conduct of meetings, the petitioners are constrained to file I.A.No.586/2019 seeking a direction to the respondents not to proceed in conducting the 31^st Diocesan General Council meeting on 03.12.2019 and 04.12.2019 at Madanapalli in the light of the earlier injunction orders passed in IA.No.812 of 2016. The said IA is pending. However, the respondents held the meetings on 03.12.2019 and 04.12.2019. Therefore, the petitioners filed I.A.No.3/2020 in O.S.No.292/2016 under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of C.P.C complaining violation of the injunction order dated 18.11.2016 passed in I.A.No.812/2016 in O.S.No.292/2016.

¶13

As the trial court has not taken up the I.As viz., IA.No.586 of 2019 & IA.No.3 of 2020, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present C.R.P No.534/2021 under the provisions of Art 227 of Constitution of India complaining that the trial court refused to exercise the jurisdiction to restrain the respondents to conduct the 31^st Diocesan Council meeting and elections and filed I.A.No.1 of 2021 seeking stay of all further proceedings of the 31^st Diocesan Council of CSI RD, Kadapa, stating that as per the order

¶14

¶15

dated 18.11.2016 of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Tadipatri in I.A.No.812/2016 in O.S.No.292/2016, the conduct of the 31^st Diocesan Council meeting is illegal and arbitrary.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioners emphatically submitted that inspite of the injunction order dated 18.11.2016 granted in I.A.No.812/2016 in O.S.No.292/2016 which is confirmed by the order dated 08.03.2017 in C.M.A.No.12 of 2016 on the file of the learned VI Additional District Judge, Gooty, the 31^st Diocesan Council meeting was conducted by the respondent No.1 and members were elected. The procedure as contemplated under Chapter VI Rule 40 of the Constitution of the Church of South India is yet to be complied with. The conduct of elections and electing of the members, in violation of the orders passed by the trial court, is illegal and arbitrary. The trial court failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested in it in further restraining the respondents in proceeding to conduct 31^st Diocesan Council meeting to elect members and installation of committee.

¶17

Sri B. Adinaryana Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Nagaraju Naguri, learned counsel for the respondents on record would contend that the C.R.P. itself is not maintainable under Art 227 of the Constitution of India as no order of the trial Court has been assailed. Merely on the ground that the applications filed by the petitioners were not taken up for hearing, the petitioners cannot approach this Court. The contention of the petitioners is that the trial court failed to exercise its jurisdiction in setting right the irregularity committed by the respondents by conducting the 31^st Diocesan Council meeting and elections inspite of the

¶18

¶19

injunction order operating against them. If the trial court having entertained the application refused to exercise the jurisdiction and committed any error of law only, the Civil Revision Petition under Art 227 of Constitution of India is maintainable otherwise it is not maintainable.

¶20

Learned Senior Counsel further submits that this C.R.P. is filed suppressing several facts viz., that the petitioners themselves participated in the Diocesan Council meetings held on 03.12.2019 & 04.12.2019 at Madanapalli, and the further elections; however, they were unsuccessful. The petitioners case is that they participated in the meeting only to bring to the notice of the respondent No.1 about the orders dated 18.11.2016 passed by the trial court in I.A.No.812/2016 in O.S.No.292/2016 and not to conduct any meeting or elections which amounts to contempt of court. Having knowledge of the said fact, petitioners filed I.A.No.1 of 2021 in C.R.P.No.534 of 2021 which amounts to suppression of material fact. The petitioners approached this Court with unclean hands and misguided this Court and obtained interim orders. The interim order granted by the trial court cannot survive in view of the interim stay granted by this court vide order dated 07.05.2021 in I.A.No.1/2021 in C.R.P.No.534 of 2021 and in view of the order, the Diocese is unable to conduct its religious and administrative functions and unable to pay the salaries and other expenses incurred in the administration. In these circumstances, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶21

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submissions of the learned counsel and on perusal

¶22

¶23

of the record, this Court found that the present C.R.P. is filed under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India stating that the trial Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction by passing orders in the applications filed by the petitioners. Initially in IA.No.812 of 2016 filed by the petitioners seeking temporary injunction restraining the respondents from conducting the 31^st Diocesan Council meeting from 07.11.2016 to 09.11.2016 in pursuance of notification issued by respondents 1 to 4, the trial Court by orders dated 18.11.2016 granted temporary injunction restraining the respondents 1 to 7 from conducting 31^st Diocesan Council meeting in pursuance of notification dated 22.09.2016. Thereafter, the petitioners filed another application viz., IA.No.586 of 2019 seeking stay of conducting of 31^st Diocesan Council meetings on 03.12.2019 & 04.12.2019 in pursuance of the meeting notice dated 21.10.2019, till disposal of the suit, OS.No.292 of 2016 and IA.No.748 of 2018. However, pending the said stay application, alleging that the 31^st Diocesan Council meeting and elections were conducted, they filed another application, IA.No.3 of 2020, to punish the respondents for violation of the trial Court orders in IA.No.812 of 2016. Even after six (6) months they failed to get appropriate orders in the trial court and approached this Court complaining that the trial court refused to exercise the jurisdiction and pass appropriate orders to prevent the conduct of the 31^st Diocesan Council meeting and elections and restrain the functions of the respondent No.1. Therefore, the petitioners approached this Court by filing this revision petition along with stay application suppressing several material facts. This Court, while ordering notice before admission, granted interim stay orders

¶24

¶25

dated 07.05.2021 in I.A.No.1 of 2021, for a limited period i.e., till 22.06.2021. Learned senior counsel submits that the said order prevents the functioning of the respondent No.1 to conduct the religious functions, administration of Diocese and that the order is obtained suppressing the factual issues of the participation of the petitioners in the Diocese meetings and elections.

¶26

This Court found that the earlier litigation in the suit O.S.No.292 of 2016 before the learned Junior Civil Judge at Tadipathri was with regard to preparation of incorrect votes list for Triennium period from 2016-2019 only, for which temporary injunction orders were granted in favour of the petitioners. Thereafter, on the understanding and by including the petitioner’s name in the voters list the Triennium of 31^st Diocesan Council meeting for the period 2019-2022 was held on 3^rd and 4^th December, 2019. The 1^st petitioner’s name could be found in the voters list of 31^st Diocesan Council for the Triennium period 20192022. She participated and franchised her voting privilege in the meeting. She has actively participated in electing the officers of the Diocese and the fresh governance of the CSI Rayalaseema Diocese for the triennium period 2019-22. She was also elected as executive committee member. The 2^nd petitioner participated in the Triennium counsel meeting and contested to the post of vicepresident and defeated by securing just three (3) votes out of three hundred (300) votes. The consecration and installation of Bishop ceremony was held on 22.02.2021 as per Chapter VI Rule 38 and Rule 40 of Rules. The Triennium counsel meeting of 31^st Diocesan Council for the period 2019-2022 is not the subject matter of litigation in O.S.No.292 of 2016 pending before Junior Civil Judge,

¶27

¶28

Tadipatri. Hence, the contention of the petitioner that the Triennium counsel meeting held on 3^rd and 4^th December, 2019 is contrary to the temporary injunction granted in I.A.No.812 of 2016 is untenable, as the cause of action for O.S.No.292 of 2016 arose on preparation of incorrect voters list for the Triennium period 2016-19.

¶29

Even as per the contention of the petitioners, ‘Installation’, which is mandatory as contemplated under Chapter VI Rule 40 of the Constitution of Church of South India is already complied with. Considering the said fact and the conduct of the petitioners in suppressing the material facts, this Court found that restraining the elected body from its functioning to look after the day to day administration of the council is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and the elected body could be restrained from its functioning only on setting aside the election of the elected body. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

¶30

Accordingly, the C.R.P. is dismissed. No costs.

¶31

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending

¶32

shall stand closed.

¶33

__________________ M.GANGA RAO, J

10.06.2021

EPS

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO

¶38

¶39

C.R.P.No.534 of 2021

¶40

10.06.2021

¶41

EPS

Mrs Nirmala Johnson, v. Csi Rayalseema Diocese

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs Nirmala Johnson, v. Csi Rayalseema Diocese

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nagaram Kalyan Kumar (A-1) Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Thirumalaraju Venkateswarlu at Raju. Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Alakunta Tirupathaiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kayala Ranga swamy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh.

Smt. Mohammad Naseema Begum, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mangalagiri Rahul Teja at Kings Rahul Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh