APHC010562572025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 1122 of 2025 Bench Sr.No:-3 [3552] Rev.Yelamati Martin ...Appellant Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Appellant: Mr. Chintapalli Srinivas Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): GP for Social Welfare for R.1, GP for Revenue for R.6, GP for Home for R.7 & R.8, Mr. P. Rajasekhar representing Mr. J.V.Phaniduth for R.9 CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 3rd November, 2025 Per Dhiraj Singh Thakur, CJ (oral) : The present writ appeal has been preferred against the order, dated 09.10.2025, passed by the learned single Jude in IA.No.1 of 2025 arising out of WP.No.27769 of 2025. 2. By virtue of the said impugned order, the learned single Judge ordered interim suspension of the proceedings, dated 25.09.2025, issued by 2 HCJ & CGR, J WA_1122_2025 the Administrator – the third respondent in the writ petition, who was appointed on the strength of an order, dated 03.04.2025, passed by a Division Bench of this Court in WA.No.1033 of 2023 and batch. 3. It is not out of place here to mention that in WA.No.1033 of 2023, a Division Bench of this Court had ordered the appointment of Justice Kurian Joseph, former Judge, Supreme Court of India, who was to act as a ‘Controller’ for ensuring the smooth conduct of elections starting from the synod level as also the elections to the central body of the Andhra Evangelical Lutheran Church [AELC]. The elections were directed to be conducted in accordance with the constitution and the by-laws of AELC as also the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001. It was directed that till such time as new management was put in place, the day to day affairs of the Society would be conducted as per the instructions and directions of the Controller, who may, if necessary, appoint an Administrator on such terms as he deems appropriate and reasonable to run the day to day affairs of the Society as also to assist the Controller in the smooth conduct of the elections. 4. Based upon the directions so issued in the Writ Appeal supra, the ‘Controller’ assumed his position as such and also appointed an Administrator 3 HCJ & CGR, J WA_1122_2025 who was tasked with certain duties in terms of the proceedings, dated 25.06.2025, which inter alia authorized the Administrator to take necessary decisions pertaining to the day to day affairs of the AELC, including but not limited to the decisions regarding pastor appointments/transfers, matters relating to accounts and finance, matters concerning disciplinary proceedings among others. The Administrator, however, was directed to consult the Controller in all important matters before the proceedings were to be issued. 5. In the aforementioned backdrop, the Administrator is stated to have issued proceedings, dated 25.09.2025, whereby the petitioner, Rev.Ch.Isaiah Raju, who was earlier put on notice, was suspended from the post of Parish Pastor of Lutheran Church, Macherla, w.e.f 27.09.2025. The petitioner was also directed to handover the records and keys of the Church to Rev.Y. Martin, the new Parish Pastor immediately. 6. It is the aforementioned order which came to be challenged before the learned single Judge primarily on the ground that the Administrator did not have the requisite authority to pass the order of suspension. It is not out of place here to mention that Rev.Y. Martin was appointed simultaneously by virtue of proceedings, dated 25.09.2025, as Parish Pastor of the Lutheran Church, Macherla, w.e.f 27.09.2025 until further orders. 4 HCJ & CGR, J WA_1122_2025 7. The learned single Judge vide the order impugned did not return a finding on the issue as to whether the order passed by the Administrator appointed by the Controller was without jurisdiction and, therefore, directed the Controller to examine the said issue ‘as expeditiously as possible’. Not only this, the learned single Judge ordered that till such time as the issue was considered by the Controller, there would be interim suspension of the order which was under challenge in the writ petition. 8. On the face of it, it can be seen that the issue as to whether the Administrator did have the authority or not in terms of the powers delegated to him was not at all dealt with and considered and no finding thereupon was returned. While the issue was relegated to the Controller to examine as to whether the Administrator had the authority or not, the learned single Judge ordered interim suspension. This, in our opinion, was impermissible inasmuch as there was no basis to order interim suspension of the proceedings issued by the Administrator in the absence of any prima facie case having been recorded to have been established by the learned single Judge. 9. While the learned single Judge had exercised its authority to relegate the matter to the Controller to determine whether the Administrator was conferred with the power to suspend or not, yet, there had to be a specific satisfaction recorded before ordering the interim suspension. The mere fact that the issue was referred to the Controller to decide would itself suggest that 5 HCJ & CGR, J WA_1122_2025 the petitioner before the learned single Judge had not made out a prima facie case before it, as otherwise, there would have been no occasion for the learned single Judge to relegate the matter to the decision of the Controller. 10. Although the proceedings issued by the Controller, dated 25.06.2025, do suggest that the Controller had conferred on the Administrator various powers including the powers regarding appointment of Pastors/transfers as also the powers with regard to disciplinary proceedings and in the ordinary course if such power is with the Administrator, prima facie it could be held that the order of suspension passed by the Administrator as also the appointment of Rev. Y. Martin was within jurisdiction, yet, we do not wish to delve much upon that inasmuch as the issue may be considered either by the learned single Judge or the Controller which has now been conferred with the power to decide the issue. However, we feel that till such time as the issue is decided, either at the level of the Controller or before the learned single Judge upon hearing, the interim suspension as ordered by the learned single Judge vide order, 09.10.2025, cannot be sustained more so for the reason that the petitioner had not challenged the proceedings of the Administrator in regard to the appointment of Rev.Y. Martin. 11. Be that as it may, we set aside the order impugned to the limited extent it pertains to the suspension of the proceedings, dated 25.09.2025, 6 HCJ & CGR, J WA_1122_2025 whereby the petitioner, Chatla Isaiah Raju, was suspended from the post of Parish Pastor of Lutheran Church, Macherla, w.e.f 27.09.2025. 12. The Writ Appeal is, accordingly allowed in part. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J Vjl