9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 1239X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion are brought into existence for the purpose of this case. Section 24 of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 deals with appointment and removal of manager of private institution. Sub-section (1) of Section 24 of the Act, 1982 provides that the management of every private institution shall be constituted in such manner and shall consist of such number of members as may be prescribed. It is not in dispute that the third respondent is running educational institutions. Sub-section (2) of Section 24 provides that the management shall, for the purposes of this Act, nominate a person to manage the affairs of the institution, whether called by the name of secretary, correspondent or by any other name, and intimate such nomination within 30 days thereof to the competent authority - Under Section 114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the Court may presume that judicial and official acts have been regularly performed, unless contrary is proved. When the party proved the fact that judicial or official act has been, in effect, done or performed, then the presumption would come to the aid of the party to the effect that the said act was performed in accordance with law. As seen from t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sekhar, Pavan Kumar Annabathuni and Raja Reddy Koneti For the Respondent : J. Anil Kumar, SC, C.V. Mohan Reddy, Sr. Counsel for K.V. Bhanu Prasad and V.R. Avula ORDER K.C. Bhanu, J. 1. Writ Petition No. 28057 of 2012 is filed seeking to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the Award dated 29.09.2011 passed by the first respondent in Case No. 1890 of 2011 and quash the same and consequently restore Appeal Suit No. 128 of 2007 to the file of the VII Additional District Judge, Krishna at Vijayawada. 2. The brief facts may be stated as follows. Third respondent is a society registered in accordance with the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, with objectives inter alia to establish and run educational institutions. It established several educational institutions in and around Vijayawada, and one such educational institution is Sathavahana College established in 1971. The society entered into an agreement of sale dated 11.12.1974 for purchase of property admeasuring Ac. 2.94 cents in NTS 13, Moghalrajapuram, Vijayawada for establishment of Sathavahana College. The agreement contains a recital that second respondent ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ling petition to set aside default order and to set aside the default order. On 25.07.2011, the petitioner resigned to the post of Secretary by withdrawing his hereditary rights as patron member. Thereafter, one Alapati Rajendra Prasad was given patron membership of third respondent society and was unanimously elected as Secretary of the society. The Commissioner of Collegiate Education, vide order dated 26.09.2011, approved the change of correspondent-ship of the college after asserting his resignation. Accordingly, he assumed charge as Secretary of the society and thereby Correspondent of Sathavahana College. But, the petitioner was surprised to notice that the first respondent passed the impugned Award with the terms and conditions mentioned therein. The petitioner had not appeared before the Lok Adalat and not signed in the Award and his signature was forged. In this regard, he also lodged a complaint before the Station House Officer, Suryaraopet police station and a case in crime No. 351 of 2011 was also registered. He also filed Interlocutory Application before the appellate court seeking to set aside the Award which was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation, but it was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 26.7.2011, are false. The writ petitioner and said A. Rajendra Prasad are collusively trying to attack the Award. The alleged approval of change of correspondent by the Commissioner of Collegiate Education does not empower the said A. Rajendra Prasad to question the Award and the said approval is only for a limited purpose. The writ petitioner was very much present before the Lok Adalat and signed in the Award at 4.30 PM on 29.09.2011. Even in police complaint, it is stated that on 06.09.2011, an issue was brought to the notice of the writ petitioner that an award was passed in the Lok Adalat on 29.9.2011, and therefore, it is clear that even before settlement in Lok Adalat, he was preparing the ground to attack the Award on one pretext or the other. Entire Writ Petition is silent as to when the new Secretary assumed charge. The third respondent settled the matter by receiving huge amount and prepared a ground even before settlement for attacking the award. There is no fraud or misrepresentation played on the writ petitioner or the third respondent or the Court. The writ petitioner is playing fraud by misrepresenting the facts. The fact that no allegation is made against the cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it has become final and cannot be set aside. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the second respondent contended that when the appeal was dismissed for default, the writ petitioner filed two applications viz. one to condone delay in filing set aside petition and the other to set aside the default dismissal order; that the third respondent, having realized that the suit filed against wife of the second respondent was already dismissed, entered into compromise with the second respondent after passing a resolution; that as the second respondent was sick at that point of time, he gave General Power of Attorney to his son who participated in the compromise proceedings and signed on behalf of the second respondent; that on earlier occasion, the self-styled Secretary of the third respondent filed a Writ Petition before this Court and this Court gave a categorical finding that the present petitioner is the Secretary at the relevant point of time of passing of the Award and dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the society represented by Secretary A. Rajendra Prasad, and that a Special Leave Petition was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and when the Hon'ble Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 vide Registration No. 105 of 1969. Two years thereafter, Satavahana Junior and Degree College was established by the society. The society purchased an extent of Ac. 2.94 cents in NTS No. 13, Moghalrajapuram, Vijayawada from the second respondent under an agreement of sale dated 11.12.1974. The society filed Original Suit No. 109 of 2001 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada against the second respondent and his son for specific performance of contract of sale dated 11.12.1974. The schedule of the property is Ac. 2.94 cents in NTS No. 13, Moghalrajapuram, Vijayawada. The said suit was dismissed on 05.04.2007. Challenging the same, the society filed Appeal Suit No. 128 of 2007 on the file of the VII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada. On 10.07.2009, the said appeal was dismissed for default. On 20.12.2010, the third respondent society represented by its Secretary V. Kameswara Rao, filed I.A. No. 8 of 2011 to condone delay of 524 days in filing the set aside default dismissal order and I.A. No. 9 of 2011 for restoration of the appeal. The said applications were posted to 03.10.2011. Son of the secon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the observations cannot be taken as a finding or a ratio laid down by this Court. 14. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the third respondent that by playing fraud on the Lok Adalat and by impersonation, the Award was passed and therefore it is liable to be set aside. On this aspect, learned counsel for the petitioner placed strong reliance on a decision in A.V. Papayya Sastry Ors. v. Government of A.P. Ors. AIR 2007 Supreme Court 1546, wherein it is held thus: (Paras 19 22) We are further of the view that the State Government, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was right in exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Act. Mr. Venugopal is indeed right in submitting that even though no period of limitation is prescribed for exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the State Government suo motu, such power must be exercised within a reasonable time [vide State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha]. But taking into account the facts and circumstances in their entirety and in particular, a letter of Chief Engineer, Visakhapatnam Port Trust of December 19, 1985, it cannot be said that the power ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proved before this Court merely basing on the pleadings. Therefore, it has to be pleaded and established before the competent forum. So, on the ground of fraud or misrepresentation, the impugned Award passed by the Lok Adalat cannot be set aside by this Court. 16. Now, it has to be seen whether the impugned Award passed by the Lok Adalat is an 'Award' within the meaning of Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987? 17. The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for short, 'the Act, 1987') was enacted to organize Lok Adalats to ensure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice on a basis of equal opportunity. The system of Lok Adalat which is an innovative mechanism for alternate dispute resolution, has proved effective for resolving the disputes in a spirit of conciliation outside the courts. Section 19 of the Act, 1987 provides for organization of Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit. Sub-section (5) of Section 19 provides that a Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l the parties to the dispute and no appeal shall lie to any Court against such Award. Once an Award is passed by the Lok Adalat, it shall be final and no appeal is provided against it. However, Lok Adalat has to ensure that the parties to the dispute should be present before the Bench and accept the compromise or settlement arrived at, between them. 20. In exercise of the powers conferred under the provisions of Section 29A of the Act, 1987 and in consultation with the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh, wherever necessary, the State Legal Services Authority made Regulations, known as 'the Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority Regulations, 1996' (for short, 'the Regulations, 1996'). Regulation No. 31 of the Regulations, 1996 reads as follows: Notice to the parties concerned: The Secretary of the High Court Committee or the District Authority or the Chairman of the Taluk Committee, as the case may be, convening and organizing the Lok Adalat shall inform every litigant whose case is referred to the Lok Adalat, well in time, so as to afford him an opportunity to prepare himself for the Lok Adalat. Regulation No. 38 deals with the proced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ana Area) Public Societies Registration Act, 1350F are hereby repealed. Sub-section (2) provides for savings of the act done or action taken in pursuance of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Section 3 of the Act, 2001 provides as to how a society can be registered. Section 4 deals with Memorandum of Association of the society and Bye-laws to be filed with Registrar. Section 8 deals with amendment of Memorandum and Bye-laws. Section 14 deals with Committee of the society; Section 18 provides that society is to be a body corporate, which reads as follows: The registration of society shall render it a body corporate by the name under which it is registered having perpetual succession and a common seal. The society shall be entitled to acquire, hold and dispose of property, to enter into contracts, to institute and defend suits and other legal proceedings and to do all other things necessary for the furtherance of the aim for which it was constituted. Section 19 of the Act, 2001 reads as follows: Legal Proceedings:- (1) The Committee or any officer of the society authorized in this behalf by its bye-laws, may bring or defend any action or other legal proceedings t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 26.07.2011. On the same day, another resolution was passed by the Council accepting patron membership of one Alapati Rajendra Prasad, and thereafter, by resolution dated 26.07.2011, accepted membership of Alapati Rajendra Prasad and he was declared unanimously elected as Secretary. By a resolution dated 01.08.2011, authorization was given to the Secretary to operate all Bank accounts and perform financial transactions. On coming to know about the passing of the Lok Adalat Award, the petitioner lodged a complaint with police stating that he handed over the charge of Secretary of the third respondent society to Alapati Rajendra Prasad on 15.09.2011 and that on 27.09.2011, he handed over the charge of Correspondent-ship to the said Alapati Rajendra Prasad and later he came to know about the passing of the Award. Basing on the said complaint, Suryaraopet police, Vijayawada registered a case in crime No. 351 of 2011 for the offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 25. Rules and Regulations of the third respondent Society provide for powers of the management as well as the powers of the Secretary. The Bye-laws of the society are not denied or disputed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bad. Except disputing about the documents and the resolutions passed by the society, nothing has been brought to our notice that the resolutions passed by the society and the proceedings issued by the Commissioner of Collegiate Education are brought into existence for the purpose of this case. 28. Section 24 of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 deals with appointment and removal of manager of private institution. Sub-section (1) of Section 24 of the Act, 1982 provides that the management of every private institution shall be constituted in such manner and shall consist of such number of members as may be prescribed. It is not in dispute that the third respondent is running educational institutions. Sub-section (2) of Section 24 provides that the management shall, for the purposes of this Act, nominate a person to manage the affairs of the institution, whether called by the name of secretary, correspondent or by any other name, and intimate such nomination within 30 days thereof to the competent authority. As defined under Section 2(12) of the Act, 1982, 'competent authority' means any person, officer or authority authorized by the Government by notification to perfo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rms as they can agree upon. In other words, it is an adjustment between the parties to a dispute ending in a settlement. There is no source of legal power in writing given to the Secretary of the third respondent society to do an act or to enter into settlement or compromise. Even assuming for a moment that the petitioner signed the Memo to advance the appeal and that he signed in the compromise, he is not competent or fit person to enter into compromise with the son of the second respondent on behalf of the third respondent society. There is no Special Resolution or Ordinary Resolution passed by the Executive Council or General Body of the third respondent society in favour of the petitioner to enter into compromise or settlement with the son of the plaintiff. Therefore, any act done by such person cannot be said to be legal or proper and would not bind on the society. The society of third respondent is governed by the Rules and Regulations and they have to be acted upon. Any deviation in this regard would not have any effect on the rights and liabilities of the society. 31. Coming to the second party to the compromise viz. B.S.S. Krishna, admittedly, he is not a party to the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted in the office, is not known. It would not have been placed before the Court. Even assuming for a moment that it was called for, by the Presiding Officer, the permission to represent as General Power of Attorney holder is given on 29.09.2011. But, the General Power of Attorney holder may be son of the respondent, but the Lok Adalat Members have to verify whether the General Power of Attorney contains any clause enabling the holder to enter into compromise. These aspects are silent in the Award passed by the Lok Adalat. 34. There was no urgent need to file a petition by the General Power of Attorney to advance the appeal. Further, none of the parties to the appeal signed in the joint memo dated 28.09.2011. I.A. No. 543 of 2011 filed by the General Power of Attorney holder, to advance the appeal ought not to have been allowed by the learned Judge on 28.09.2011 because his application to permit him to represent his father through the General Power of Attorney was pending as on that date. So, advancing the appeal in such a hurried manner, that too at the instance of a person, who is not authorized, speaks volumes. It was signed by the advocate appearing on behalf of the parties. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Award. Any infraction of the Rules or Regulations or the provisions of the statute, debars a party in filing the appeal or recalling such Award except by filing Writ Petition invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only in case of obtaining the Award by playing fraud or misrepresentation, and finally binding on the parties to the suit or appeal and becomes executable as if it is a decree of Civil Court. The impugned Award is not signed by the parties to the appeal and therefore it is not binding on any one of the parties to the appeal. 38. With regard to locus standi of the petitioner, he categorically stated that his signature was found in the Award and therefore the third respondent society is contemplating to take legal action against the petitioner as if the petitioner consented for settlement after submitting resignation for obvious reasons. So, to dispel the cloud of legal action against him, he can file the Writ Petition in his individual capacity so as to challenge the Award especially when the Award does not contain that the settlement was arrived at for and on behalf of the society. Therefore, the petitioner is an aggrieved pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
