Back
2022 Supreme(AP) 130
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J.
SAMAVESAM OF TELUGU BAPTIST CHURCHES - Petitioner
Vs.
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH - Respondent
W.P.No.22080 of 2021
Decided On : 28-02-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: ARAVALA SREENIVASA RAO
For the Respondent: GP
Point of Law: G.O. is very much clear that it is only those educational institutions, whose managements have voluntarily agreed to surrender, were proposed to be taken over by the Government.
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Writ of Mandamus - Petitioners challenge G.O. issued by 2nd respondent and consequential proceedings issued by 2nd respondent as violative of principles of natural justice as illegal, and for a consequential direction to respondents to restore grant-in-aid posts, both teaching and non-teaching - Whether there are merits in writ petition to allow.
Finding of the Court:
Court perused copy of letter addressed by petitioner to 2nd respondent, wherein it was stated that management of STBC was not willing to handover staff and property of institutions - As such court find considerable force in submission of learned counsel for petitioners. When petitioner institute has addressed letter, expressing its unwillingness to handover staff and property of petitioner institutions, it is incomprehensible as to from whom 2nd respondent has obtained willingness and addressed letter to Government that management was willing to handover aided staff - A perusal of G.O.Ms. would clearly depict that Government proposes to takeover willing private aided degree colleges including minority degree colleges in State without any financial burden on exchequer - In that context, Government has directed Commissioner of Collegiate Education to call for applications in writing from management and staff of such private aided degree colleges whose managements were voluntarily willing to handover management and infrastructure to Government without any liabilities - Thus, G.O. is very much clear that it is only those educational institutions, whose managements have voluntarily agreed to surrender, were proposed to be taken over by Government - That appears to be not case in present instance - Therefore, impugned proceedings have no validity and legal sanctity in court considered view and they are liable to be set aside.
Result : Writ petition is allowed.
ORDER :
Petitioners challenge the G.O.Rt.No.139, dated 01.09.2021 issued by the 2nd respondent and consequential proceedings inRc.No.64 /Admn.III-B/2021, dated 08.09.2021 issued by the 2nd respondent as violative of principles of natural justice as illegal, and for a consequential direction to respondents to restore the grant-in-aid posts, both teaching and non-teaching of ABM Degree College, Ongole.
2. The 1st petitioner is Samavesam of Telugu Baptist Churches (for short ‘STBC’), Rep. by its General Secretary Rev. J. M. Franklin; 2nd petitioner is Board of Education and 3rd petitioner is the Correspondent of ABM Degree College, Ongole. Their case is that STBC is a registered society established in 1963 and it has been managing various educational institutions in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. There are about 42 educational institutions under the management of STBC.
(a) One Chilaka David Prakash Rao claiming as Additional General Secretary of STBC filed W.P.No.1993 of 1993 on the file of High Court of Andhra Pradesh to consider the nominations made by him for correspondent ship of various educational institutions run by STBC and the said writ petition was disposed on 17.04.1993 with a direction to authorities to consider his representation. Thereupon the STBC society represented by its General Secretary filed Writ Appeal No.61 of 1994 seeking leave of the High Court to question the order dated 17.04.1993 contending thus that Chilaka David Prakash Rao had no locus standi to file the writ petition representing the society because O.S.No.118 of 1991 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Nellore was pending against him wherein interim injunction was also issued against him. The said suit was filed for declaration that Chilaka David Prakash Rao and his henchmen were not duly elected office bearers of the STBC and for injunction restraining them from interfering with the affairs of the STBC. The said Chilaka David Prakash Rao and others filed O.S.No.87 of 1991 on the file of Court of Senior Civil Judge, Markapur against the management of the STBC. In W.P.No.1993 of 1993 the said Chilaka David Prakash Rao suppressed the pendency of the above suits. Therefore, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in its order dated 24.01.1994 allowed the Writ Appeal No.61 of 1994 by quashing the orders in W.P.No.1993 of 1993. It was also directed that both the suits should be tried together. Accordingly, the O.S.No.87 of 1991 filed by Chilaka David Prakash Rao was transferred to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Nellore and tried along with O.S.No.118 of 1991. The said suit was registered and re-numbered as O.S.No.40 of 1994. By common judgment dt: 06.07.1999 O.S.No.118 of 1991 filed by STBC was decreed holding that Chilaka David Prakash Rao and others were not duly elected office bearers of STBC whereas O.S.No.40 of 1994 filed by Chilaka David Prakash Rao was dismissed.
(b). Aggrieved, Chilaka David Prakash Rao filed A.S.No.55 of 1999 and A.S.No.87 of 1999 on the file of Court of III Additional District Judge, Nellore questioning the common judgment dt: 06.07.1999 in the above suits and both appeals were dismissed.
(c) While so, the Government have issued G.O.Rt.No.627, dt: 03.09.2001 for approving the correspondents nominated by C.D. Prakash Rao on the ground that A.S.No.55 of 1999 filed by him was pending before the District Court. Basing on the said G.O. consequential proceedings were issued for approving the correspondent ship of various educational institutions being run by STBC.
(d) Questioning the G.O.Rt.No.627 and consequential proceedings, STBC filed W.P.No.1324 of 2002, W.P.No.1994 of 2004 and W.P.No.2000 of 2004 and this Court was pleased to suspend the consequential proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent. However, Special Officers were appointed to manage the educational institutions. It is submitted that the 4th respondent herein was one of such Special Officers appointed for ABM Degree College, Ongole, which is an aided college and one of the instit
