ORDER :

Nyapathy Vijay, J.

The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of Respondent No.2 in issuing Election Notification No.S1/503/2026, dated 05.05.2026 without following the procedure prescribed as per the Bye-Laws of the JMB Church as illegal and arbitrary.

2. The Petitioner is a registered private Scoeity under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The members of the Society are the devotees of Lord Jesus Christ and have been worshiping such a god on the church premises. While so, some unauthorized persons claiming to be the members of the JMB Church filed SROP against the Petitioner and others under Section 23 of the AP Societies Registration Act, 2001. The said SROP was filed to restrain the Respondent Nos. 1 to 12 therein as Standing Committee Members of the 26th Respondent Church and other consequential reliefs.

3. In the said SROP, I.A.No.1063 of 2024 was filed for the grant of an interim injunction restraining the Respondents therein from conducting elections to the church. The said I.A. was allowed on 02.12.2024. Questioning the same, CMA No.534 of 2025 was filed before this Court, and this Court, vide orders dated 08.01.2026, disposed of the same with a direction to the District Registrar (Firms and Societies), Ongole, to finalize the list of qualified or eligible members of the 27th Respondent Church and issue election notification. Accordingly, the election notification was issued on 05.05.2026 in terms thereof. Questioning the said election notification, the present writ petition is filed.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for Social Welfare submits that the present Writ Petition cannot be maintained as the Petitioner Society is a Private Society and the issue regarding the election cannot be entertained in a Writ Petition before this Court.

5. Heard the respective counsel.

6. The Society is registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860. The members of the Society are the devotees of Lord Jesus Christ and have been worshiping in that church. It appears that the society is purely a private society and caters only to the welfare and well being of the members of the society.

7. Firstly, It is not the case of the Petitioner that the Society is a “State” within Article 12 of the Constitution or that it performs any public functions. The only reason given for maintaining the writ petition was that the State Government had appointed Respondent No.2 to conduct elections and hence, writ petitions are maintainable. The mere appointment of Respondent No.2 to conduct elections would not alter the nature of the society nor can it be said that Respondent No.2 was discharging public duties or public functions. With multidimensional functions of various authorities, the thin line between “public functions” and “private functions” discharged by a person is often blurred and it is necessary to maintain a writ petition after determining the nature of the duty to be enforced by the body or authority rather than identifying the authority against whom it is sought. In this case, Respondent No.2 is not discharging any statutory duties, but was acting merely as an Election Officer.

8. In St. Mary’s Education Society v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava, (2023) 4 SCC 498 the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered whether a writ petition can be maintained for violation of byelaws of the CBSE regarding disciplinary matters against a private un-aided school. Entire case law on this point was considered and relevant paragraphs are extracted below;

“66. Merely because a writ petition can be maintained against the private individuals discharging the public duties and/or public functions, the same should not be entertained if the enforcement is sought to be secured under the realm of a private law. It would not be safe to say that the moment the private institution is amenable to writ jurisdiction then every dispute concerning the said private institution is amenable to writ jurisdiction. It largely depends upon th