1 APHC010074472026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] THURSDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 4152/2026 Between: 1. BHAGAVAN SRI KRISHNA AKHILA BHARATHA NITYA ANNADANA SEVA SAMASTHA, (REGD. NO. 407/2002), KURNOOL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. REP BY ITS PRESIDENT GORLA SATYANARAYANA, S/O G. RAMANA, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, OCC PRESIDENT OF BHAGAVAN SRI KRISHNA AKHILA BHARATHA NITYA ANNADANA SEVA SAMASTHA, KURNOOL, ANDHRA PRADESH, R/O H. NO. 28-16-48/A3, NUNEPALLI, NANDYALA TOWN, KURNOOL DISTRICT-518001. 2. GORLA SATYANARAYANA,, S/O G. RAMANA, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, OCC PRESIDENT OF BHAGAVAN SRI KRISHNA AKHILA BHARATHA NITYA ANNADANA SEVA SAMASTHA, KURNOOL, ANDHRA PRADESH, R/O H. NO. 28-16-48/A3, NUNEPALLI, NANDYALA TOWN, KURNOOL DISTRICT-518001. 3. DONDAPATI SRINIVASULU,, S/O VENKATESHWARLU, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER OF DT PETITIONER, R/O H. NO. 4-35-563/12/A, FLAT. NO. 401, SRI SAI AVENUE, RAMA RAO NAGAR COLONY, VTC, KUKATPALLY OF MEDCHAL-MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT-500029 4. NARLIGALLA VENU GOPAL,, S/O PANDURANGA RAO,AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER OF LST PETITIONER, R/O H. NO. 4-79, BHUDDHANAGAR COLONY, PEERZADIGUDA,BODUPPAL,GHATKESARMANDAL, MEDCHAL MALKAJGIRIDISTRICT-500029 5. MEKALA RAJENDHAR YADAV,, S/O ESHWARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, OCC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER OF 1ST 2 PETITIONER, R/O H. NO. 13-2-601-136, CID COLONY, RAHEEMPURA, HYDERABAD. 6. MAILIKA BALA MALLESH,, S/O MALLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, OCC VIEE PRESIDENT OF 1ST PETITIONER, R/O H. NO. 8-1-209, PRAGATHI COLONY, OPP RAGHAVENDRA HOSPITAL, MAILDEVARAPALLI, PALLECHERU, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT- 500029 ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (ENDOWMENTS) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELLAGAPUDI, GUNTUR, AMRAVATHI-522237 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT-52001 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ENDOWMENTS, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT-518001. 4. SRI BHRAMARAMBIKA MALLIKARJUNA SWAMY VARLA DEVASTHANAM, SRISAILAM, KURNOOL DISTRICT. REP BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER. -518001. 5. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, SRISAILAM POLICE STATION, SRISAILAM, KURNOOL DISTRICT -518001. 6. PINNIKA LAKSHMI PRASAD YADAV, S/O LATE GANGAIAH, AGED 55 YEARS, R/O KHAPURAM BESIDE HANURNAN TEMPLE, MARKAPURAM TOWN, PRAKASAM DISTRICT-518001. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to ISSUE an order or orders or direction or an appropriate writ more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents more particularly the 4th respondent Devasthanam in interfering with the operations of a private Society, operating under the name and style of Bhagavan Sri Krishna Akhila Bharatha Nitya Annadana Seva Samastha, vide Regd. No. 407 of 2002 situated at srisailam, Nandayal District as illegal arbitrary, without any jurisdiction, in contrary to the law and 3 pass such other order or orders as and Consequently, direct the Respondents more particularly the respondent Nos 2 to 4 and 6 not to interfere in any manner whatsoever with the operations of a private Society, operating under the name and style of Bhagavan Sri Krishna Akhila Bharatha Nitya Annadana Seva Samastha, vide Regd. No. 407 of 2002 situated at srisailam, Nandayal District and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the Respondents more particularly the 4th respondent Devasthanam not to interfere in any manner whatso ever with the operations of 1st Petitioner Society including not to take any steps in the matter of conducting the proposed meeting on 22-02-2026 or on any later date in the premises of Satram/Choultry under the stewardship of the 6* respondent relating to the Society, including in the matter of any changes in the Managing Committee of the l^t Petitioner Society and the running and day to day affairs of the Satram/Choultry, pending disposal of the writ petition, and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the 5th respondent to give protection to the Managing Committee during the meetings conducted by the Managing Committee and initiate action by considering the petitioners representation dated 07-02- 2026 against the 6th respondent and his associates for creating disturbances in day to day activities of the private Society, operating under the name and style of Bhagavan Sri Krishna Akhila Bharatha Nitya Annadana Seva Samastha, vide Regd. No. 407 of 2002 situated at Srisailam, Nandayal District, pending disposal of the writ petition, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. CHALLA AJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following: 4 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 4152/2026 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India seeking the following reliefs:- “to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents more particularly the 4th respondent Devasthanam in interfering with the operations of a private Society, operating under the name and style of Bhagavan Sri Krishna Akhila Bharatha Nitya Annadana Seva Samastha, vide Regd. No. 407 of 2002 situated at Srisailam, Nandayal District as illegal, arbitrary, without any jurisdiction, in contrary to the law and pass such other order or orders as and consequently, direct the Respondents more particularly the respondent Nos.2 to 4 and 6 not to interfere in any manner whatsoever with the operations of a private Society, operating under the name and style of Bhagavan Sri Krishna Akhila Bharatha Nitya Annadana Seva Samastha, vide Regd. No. 407 of 2002 situated at Srisailam, Nandayal District and pass such other order.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.4. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent No.4 is interfering with the affairs of the petitioner- association without there being any valid resolution. He further submits that admittedly the petitioner-society is required to function in accordance with the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It appears that at the instance of respondent No.6, the executive body of the society passed a resolution forcibly and 5 respondent No.4 is trying to make effect the said resolution and causing interference with the affairs of the petitioner-society. In similar circumstances, this Hon’ble court passed an order in W.P.No.27513 of 2021 dated 23.11.2021 directing respondent No.4 therein not to give effect to any resolution passed by the petitioner- society. Therefore, similar orders can be extended by directing respondent No.4 not to interfere with the affairs of the petitioner- society. 4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3 submits that admittedly the petitioner-society was registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and respondent No.4 is no way concerned with the affairs of the petitioner-society. Even as per the entire material placed along with the Writ Petition there is no whisper regarding either issuance of any proceedings by respondent No.4 or any action or inaction on the part of respondent No.4 in respect of the affairs of the petitioner- society. In the absence of the same, it cannot be said that respondent No.4 has been interfering and causing inconvenience to the petitioner-society. He further submits that it appears that there are disputes between the executive committee and general members of the petitioner-society. However, the petitioner-society passed a resolution on 01.01.2026 for dissolution of present committee and for constitution of Adhoc committee. Later, to 6 constitute new committee on or before 22.12.2026. Thus, the resolution is only an internal affair of the society. For redressal of which, the petitioner-society is having effective statutory alternative remedy under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Hence, the Writ Petition is not maintainable. 5. Heard both the learned counsel and perused the material placed on record. As alleged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that at the behest of unofficial respondent No.6, the members of the petitioner-society passed a resolution forcibly contrary to the bye-laws of the society and respondent No.4 herein is trying to hold the said resolution is not true and correct for the reason the said resolution was passed unanimously by the petitioner- society. Therefore, the petitioner-society cannot sought for Writ of Mandamus from this Court contrary to its own resolution. In fact, the petitioner-society was registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, as such it would be governed under the provisions of the Act. Therefore, any disputes between the members of the society and effect of its resolution should be resolved by way of statutory alternative remedy by invoking appropriate jurisdiction. It is further observed that the resolution of the society is passed either voluntary or forcible, such resolution can be declared as valid or void not by the respondent No.4, it should be done by the District Registrar of Forum concerned or by the 7 competent court of law but not by respondent No.4 who has no jurisdiction to declare the validity of resolution. Whereas the respondent No.4 can act as per the resolution of the society, if society submits the same for implementation of resolution. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the earlier occasion this Court exercised its jurisdiction in W.P.No.27513 of 2021, wherein the contention of the petitioner-society is only alleging the interference of respondent No.4. But it is not the case in that writ petition that the respondent No.4 is dealing with the resolutions of the society. As contended by the petitioners that respondent No.4 is trying to give effect to the resolution which is passed forcibly cannot be accepted and is not valid, once resolution is submitted to the 4th respondent it is the duty of the 4th respondent to act upon as per the resolution. Further, in this Writ petition no interference of respondent No.4 into the affairs of the petitioner-society was pleaded. Therefore, the disputes between the committee and general members with regard to the resolution passed should be resolved by way invoking other jurisdiction conferred under the provisions of the Act. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, respondent No.4 is at liberty to keep the endowment property if any with the petitioner-society in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. 8 As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 12.02.2026 TTPPSS 9 193 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 4152/2026 12.02.2026 TTPPSS