IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.30716 of 2025

18.12.2025 Between:

Ayyala Danam and 18 others.

…Petitioners AND The State of Telangana, Department of Social Welfare Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat Building, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 14 others …Respondents

ORDER:

Learned counsel for the petitioners Sri Y.Soma Srinath Reddy, submits that petitioner No.1 is an eligible baptized communicant member of the Churches under respondent No.13 Diocese of the Church of South India Trust Association (CSITA), a historic trust registered under Section 26 of the Indian Companies Act, governed by its Memorandum and Articles of Association. As part of the Triennium elections for 2025–2028, respondent No.13 initiated the election process beginning at the Pastorate level. During preparation of provisional and final voters’ lists, the names of several eligible members, including petitioners, were illegally excluded, while ineligible persons were included, in clear violation of the election guidelines and CSITA bye-laws. Despite representations and objections, no corrective action was taken, and elections were hurriedly conducted on the basis of a defective voters’ list, contrary to prescribed procedures and court directions. These irregularities have directly affected the fairness of the Pastorate and Group elections and threaten to vitiate the proposed Diocesan Council elections scheduled for October 2025, thereby necessitating the present writ petition.

2. Learned counsel for petitioners relied on the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in D. Bright Joseph v. Church of South India (CSI), W.P.No. 304272 of 2022. In the said case, the short question that fell for reference is ‘would a writ petition invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India lie against the CSI which is only a private body and if so to what extent / circumstances such writs would lie.’ The said reference was answered in affirmative.

3. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.13 to 15 Sri A.Srinivas filed counter affidavit stating that writ petition is frivolous, not maintainable, and has become infructuous since the Diocesan Council

elections for the Triennium 2025–2028 were already conducted on 13^th and 14^th October 2025 and office bearers are functioning. It is stated that respondent Nos.13 to 15 are private entities governed by their own constitutions and bye-laws, are not “State” or instrumentalities under Article 12, and do not discharge any public duty. The dispute relates to internal election and contractual matters of the Church, for which alternative remedies including arbitration are available under the CSI Constitution. It is further stated that respondents Nos.1 to 12 have no role in church administration, and petitioners suppressed material facts, raised disputed questions of fact, and filed the present writ petition despite an earlier pending writ petition on the same cause, thereby rendering the petition liable to be dismissed.

4. In support of this contention, he relied on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of St.Mary’s Education Society and another Vs. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava and others2, wherein in paragraph Nos.43 and 44, it has been held as under:

“43. In the background of the above legal position, it can be safely concluded that power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be exercised by the High Court even if the body against which an action is sought is not State or an authority or an instrumentality of the State but there must be a public element in the action complained of.

2 (2023) 4 Supreme Court Cases 498

44. A reading of the above extract shows that the decision sought to be corrected or enforced must be in the discharge of a public function. No doubt, the aims and objective of Appellant 1 herein are to impart education, which is a public function. However, the