APHC010269662026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 14183 OF 2026 Between: 1. JEWETT MEMORIAL BAPTIST CHURCH, Rep by its Secretary Y. Rajasekhar, S/o. Late Devadanam, aged about 64 years, R/o C E Society Kabadipalem, Ongole, Prakasam district. ...Petitioner AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, rep by its Principal Secretary, Co-operative Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh 2. The Registrar, (Stamps AND Firms) Ongole, Prakasam District. ...Respondents 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 a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order, or Direction, declaring the action of Respondent No. 2 in issuing Election Notification No. S1/503/2026, dated 05.05.2026, without following the prescribed procedure as per the Bye-laws of the JMB church and also as per the directions of this Hon'ble Court in C.M.A.No. 534 of 2025 in I.A.No. 1063 of 2024 in S.R.O.P.No. 5 of 2017 as arbitrary, illegal, beyond the Jurisdiction and beyond the scope direction of this Hon'ble Court in CMA is violative of 2 the Fundamental Rights of the Petitioner guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently suspend the said Election Notification No. S1/503/2026, dated 05.05.2026, and further direct Respondent No. 2 to issue a fresh Election Notification and conduct elections only for the vacant posts available in the Standing Committee of the JMB Church, strictly in accordance with the Bye-laws and also as per the directions of this Hon'ble Court in C.M.A.No. 534 of 2025 in I.A.No. 1063 of 2024 in S.R.O.P.No. 5 of 2017 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 Respondent No. 2 not to conduct any elections pursuant to Election Notification No. S1/503/2026, dated 05.05.2026, pending disposal of the present writ petition, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: SARMA C V S S Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following order: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY Writ Petition No:14183 /2026 O R DE R: 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. 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 4 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 5 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 Bhargava1, 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 the nature of the dispute and the enforcement of the right by an individual against such institution. The right which purely originates from a private law cannot be enforced taking aid of the writ jurisdiction irrespective of the fact that such institution is discharging the public duties and/or public functions. The scope of the mandamus is basically limited to an enforcement of the public duty and, therefore, it is an ardent duty of the court to find out whether the nature of the duty comes within the 1 (2023) 4 SCC 498 6 peripheral of the public duty. There must be a public law element in any action. 67. Our present judgment would remain incomplete if we fail to refer to the decision of this Court in Ramakrishna Mission v. Kago Kunya39. In the said case this Court considered all its earlier judgments on the issue. The writ petition was not found maintainable against the Mission merely for the reason that it was found running a hospital, thus discharging public functions/public duty. This Court considered the issue in reference to the element of public function which should be akin to the work performed by the State in its sovereign capacity. This Court took the view that every public function/public duty would not make a writ petition to be maintainable against an “authority” or a “person” referred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unless the functions are such which are akin to the functions of the State or are sovereign in nature. 9. At paragraph 75, the Hon’ble Court summed up their conclusions as under : “75. We may sum up our final conclusions as under: 75.1. An application under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable against a person or a body discharging public duties or public functions. The public duty cast may be either statutory or otherwise and where it is otherwise, the body or the person must be shown to owe that duty or obligation to the public involving the public law element. Similarly, for ascertaining the discharge of public function, it must be established that the body or the person was seeking to achieve the same for the collective benefit of the public or a section of it and the authority to do so must be accepted by the public. 75.2. Even if it be assumed that an educational institution is imparting public duty, the act complained of must have a 7 direct nexus with the discharge of public duty. It is indisputably a public law action which confers a right upon the aggrieved to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 for a prerogative writ. Individual wrongs or breach of mutual contracts without having any public element as its integral part cannot be rectified through a writ petition under Article 226. Wherever Courts have intervened in their exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, either the service conditions were regulated by the statutory provisions or the employer had the status of “State” within the expansive definition under Article 12 or it was found that the action complained of has public law element. 75.3. It must be consequently held that while a body may be discharging a public function or performing a public duty and thus its actions becoming amenable to judicial review by a constitutional court, its employees would not have the right to invoke the powers of the High Court conferred by Article 226 in respect of matter relating to service where they are not governed or controlled by the statutory provisions. An educational institution may perform myriad functions touching various facets of public life and in the societal sphere. While such of those functions as would fall within the domain of a “public function” or “public duty” be undisputedly open to challenge and scrutiny under Article 226 of the Constitution, the actions or decisions taken solely within the confines of an ordinary contract of service, having no statutory force or backing, cannot be recognised as being amenable to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the absence of the service conditions being controlled or governed by statutory provisions, the matter would remain in the realm of an ordinary contract of service. 75.4. Even if it be perceived that imparting education by private unaided school is a public duty within the expanded expression of the term, an employee of a non-teaching staff engaged by the school for the purpose of its administration or internal management is only an agency created by it. It is immaterial whether “A” or “B” is employed by school to 8 discharge that duty. In any case, the terms of employment of contract between a school and non-teaching staff cannot and should not be construed to be an inseparable part of the obligation to impart education. This is particularly in respect to the disciplinary proceedings that may be initiated against a particular employee. It is only where the removal of an employee of non-teaching staff is regulated by some statutory provisions, its violation by the employer in contravention of law may be interfered with by the Court. But such interference will be on the ground of breach of law and not on the basis of interference in discharge of public duty. 75.5. From the pleadings in the original writ petition, it is apparent that no element of any public law is agitated or otherwise made out. In other words, the action challenged has no public element and writ of mandamus cannot be issued as the action was essentially of a private character.” 10. As narrated above, the dispute is regarding elections to a private society. There is no statutory duty and the functions are not in the realm of public duty or functions. 11. In the light of the above, Writ petition cannot be maintained and accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Petition shall stand closed. _______________________ JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY Date: 08.05.2026 eha 9 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY W.P.No.14183 of 2026 Dated: 08.05.2026 eha