An appeal against an order passed under Section 11 of the A. P. (Telangana Area) Public Societies Registration Act, 1350 F is not maintainable. Only a revision lies under Section 115 C. P. C. and Section 151 C. P. C.

T. LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is preferred against the orders passed in OP No. 120 of 85 dt. 11-2-1986 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

( 2 ) THE petitioners in the lower court are the appellants herein. The present appellant filed a petition under Sec. 11 ot the A. P. (Telangana Area) public Societies Registration Act, 1350 F (for short "the Act") praying to dissolve the present Managing Committee and to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner or alternatively to direct the Director of Cultural Affairs to appoint a person-in-charge to take over the affairs of the Sabha and to run the affairs of the Sabha and to convene the Generr. 1 Body meeting and conduct fresh elections to the Managing Committee at the earliest possible time after preparing the valid upto-date membership of all categories.

( 3 ) THE lower court while dismissing the petition directed respondents 1 and 2 i. e. , the President and Secretary of the 4th respondent Sabha to conduct fresh elections to the Managing Committee as per the bye-laws, that the Director of Cultural Affairs (State of Andhra Pradesh) other than Sri e. V. Subbarao or a duly appointed nominee is directed to be present at the time of the election and submit a report about the election. The Court further directed respondents 1 and 2 to finalise the list of the members as on that date including 36 members who paid the subscription as per the orders of the Court and the 86 members who were already admitted as members.

( 4 ) AGAINST these orders, the present appeal is preferred.

( 5 ) THOUGH number of grounds were taken in the appeal, that two grounds that are urged by the learned counsel for the appellants are, grounds nos. 7 and 9 in the grounds of appeal. They are as follows : ground 7 :the court below ought to have further notice that the 86 persons who were alleged to have been admitted by the respondents 1 to 3 as a like members were not at all admitted as members in accordance with the constitution and therefore the question of the said persons being included in the list of valid members does not arise. Ground 9 :the court below ought to have appointed an impartial and disinterested person with full powers to prepare a list of valid members with directions to the hold the General-Body meeting and conduct a fresh election in accordance with the constitution. The court below ought to have given guidelines for holding the General Body meeting by obtaining the signatures of all members present in the general Body Meeting and also issuance of notice to all the members under certificate of posting and similar questions facing the General body.

( 6 ) LET us now see, whether these two grounds are valid ones. The petitioners in their petition alleged that respondents 1 to 3 have illegally admitted 86 life members including 3 annual members who are said to have become the life members with ulterior motive to get their support ; that no new member can be admitted unless there is a resolution to that effect passed by the Managing Committee and in the case of these 86 members newly enrolled no resolution has been passed.

( 7 ) THAT is the only allegation with regard to the admission of these 36 life members. There is no prayer in the end of the petition praying for disqualifying these 86 members from membership holding that there admission was void. What is more is, these 86 members have not been made parties. In the absence of these 86 members being parties, no order that can effect their interest in the Society can be passed. What is more, is who those 86 members are also not given in the petition. It is also not given in the petition in which meeting or by which resolution those 86 persoas are admitted as members. In the absence of any such details, the lower court has rightly did not go into the question of the validity of the members whose names are not given. In this appeal, therefore, I do not think, that sufficient material is there in evidence to go into th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document