Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(AP) 150

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Arup Kumar Goswami, C. Praveen Kumar, JJ.
Dr.Butchaiah Kondragunta S/o. Nagabhushanam and others - Appellants
Versus
NRI Academy of Sciences, A Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, with Registration No.482 of 2001 and others – Respondents
I.A.No. 1 of 2021 IN/And Writ Appeal No.50 of 2021
Decided On : 24-03-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.C.V.R.Rudra Prasad
For the Respondent: Mr.P.Veera Reddy, Sr.Counsel assisted by Mr.Juvvaji Sarath Chandra, Mr.G.L.Nageswara Rao, G.P.

Point of Law: Reliefs claimed in both the proceedings clearly demonstrates that they are identical- Reliefs claimed in writ appeals and the SOP are different and distinct, cannot be accepted. Hence, we see no ground to grant leave to the appellants to file this appeal

Headnote:
Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001 - Section 9 – Society – General body meeting – Requirement of statutory notice - Grant permanent injunction restraining respondent from conducting any general body meeting any subsequent date without proper statutory notice to petitioners and all genuine members society grant permanent injunction restraining respondent from allowing or participating respondents meeting and to affairs of society in any manner whatsoever to direct respondent Registrar continue to display names petitioners as Members of respondent society and to delete names respondents to from list being maintained by it to declare that alleged conduct of executive committee meetings as illegal arbitrary and no nest in eye of law since same were conducted without prior notice to petitioners herein - Award costs petition and grant such other relief or reliefs that are deemed just and proper in circumstances of case
Finding of the Court:
- From reading reliefs claimed in very clear that petitioners therein questioned Minutes prepared by respondent therein NRI Academy of Sciences represented by its Secretary and also alleged resignation from membership society general body meeting subsequent executive committee meetings coupled with Minutes and resolutions passed therein - Further clause prayer is to declare that petitioners never resigned from membership of society respondents are not members of society and their admission to society is illegal -Comparison of reliefs claimed in both proceedings clearly demonstrates that they are identical - That being so argument counsel for appellants that reliefs claimed in writ appeals and SOP are different and distinct cannot be accepted – petitioners never resigned from the membership of the society and respondents 3 to 7 are not the members of the society and their admission to the society is illegal - reliefs claimed in writ appeals and the SOP are different and distinct, cannot be accepted. Hence, we see no ground to grant leave to the appellants to file this appeal
Result: Appeal dismissed

JUDGMENT :

C.Praveen Kumar, J.

Assailing the interim order dated 29.01.2021 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.2179 of 2020, the appellants, who are third parties to the said writ petition, preferred this appeal along with an application, being I.A.No.1 of 2021, seeking leave to pursue the appeal.

2. The order impugned in the appeal is as under:

“Notice before admission.

Post on 19.02.2021.

In terms of provisions contained under section 9 of the A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001, the District Registrar of Societies has no competence to undertake scrutiny of the particulars furnished to him, but is only required to note the information furnished to him under section 9 of the Act.

Respondent No.3 is, therefore, directed to receive the annual list for the year 2019-20 and issue certified copies to that effect and keep the information on website.”

3. It is to be noted here that the aforesaid interim order was passed by the learned single Judge on 29.01.2021. Pursuant thereto, a lunch motion came to be moved before this Court to take up the appeal, expressing the urgency involved in the matter. Having regard to the urgency expressed and considering the matter in its entirety the matter was taken up by way of lunch motion on 03.02.2021, and this Court passed the following order:

“Heard Mr.C.V.R.Rudra Prasad, learned counsel for the appellants.

Mr. P.Veera Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent, prays for a week’s time to file objection to I.A.No.1 of 2021, which is an application seeking leave to file the appeal.

Prayer is allowed.

Considering the matter in its entirety, for the time being, there shall be suspension of the order dated 14.03.2019 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in W.P.No.2382 of 2019, as prima facie, it appears that interim order granted, amounts to grant of final relief.

List on 16.02.2021.”

4. Subsequently, on 11.02.2021, the mistake that occurred in the order 03.02.2021 came to be corrected and the corrected portion of the order reads as under:

“xxxxxxx

Accordingly, in the order dated 03.02.2021, in place of “there shall be suspension of the order dated 14.03.2019 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in W.P.No.2382 of 2019”, it shall be read as “there shall be suspension of the order dated 29.01.2021 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.2179 of 2021.”

5. Thereafter, a counter came to be filed along with vacate stay application on 23.02.2021, bringing to the notice of the Court that the writ appellants have not come to the court with clean hands.

6. Mr.D.Prakash Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that prior to filing of the writ appeal, some of the appellants have filed SOP.No.1 of 2021 before the Principal District Court, Krishna District, Machilipatnam, seeking reliefs, which are identical to the one claimed in the writ appeal. According to him, on this score alone the Writ Appeal is liable to be dismissed.

7. Mr.C.V.R.Rudra Prasad, learned counsel for the appellants disputes the same, and contends that the reliefs claimed in the SOP and writ appeal are different and that the authority erred in recording the entire proceedings though it was said to have been passed under Section 9 of the Registration Act.

8. From a perusal of the material placed before the Court, it is very much clear that the writ appeal was filed before this Court on 02.02.2021 and it was listed on 03.02.2021. There is no disclosure of SOP.No.1 of 2021 filed before the Principal District Court, Krishna at Machilipatnam. Even during the course of arguments, it was not brought to the notice of the Court about filing of SOP.No.1 of 2021.

9. It is also to be noted here that even before filing of the writ appeal, the order of the learned single Judge was implemented. This fact was also not brought to the notice of the court at that point of time.

10. Further, the prayer of the petitioner in the SOP reads as under:

“i) to declare that the minutes prepared by the 1st respondent as if petitioners and s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document