APHC010409372026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE 31st DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 23241 OF 2026 Between: 1. VADLAMUDI DANIEL RAJU, S/o Immanayelu, Aged about 48 years, Occupation Parish Pastor, Lutheran Church, Tadepalli, 'C' Class Parish, R/o F.No. 303, KPP Residency Near Chuch, Bypass, Tadepalli, Guntur District - 522501. ...Petitioner AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by its Secretary to Government, Legislative Affairs AND Justice, Law Department, Secretariat Building, Amaravati, Guntur District-522238. 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat Building, Amaravati, Guntur District-522238. 3. The Andhra Evangelical Lutheran Church, Rep.by its Controller, Becker Compound, Brodipet, Guntur-522002. 4. The Administrator, Andhra Evangelical Lutheran Church (AELC), Becker Compound, Brodipet, Guntur -522002.. ...Respondents 2 VS,J W.P.No.23241 of 2026 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 toissue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari, quashing the endorsement/order of the learned District Court, Guntur, whereby the Petitioner's Original Petition file under Section 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001 was returned on the ground that the impugned proceedings were passed by a Controller appointed by this Hon'ble Court under Clause XV of the Letters Patent, and declare the said endorsement/order as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and as amounting to a failure to exercise the jurisdiction vested in the learned District Court under Section 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001, thereby violating Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Further, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to clarify that the appointment of the Controller under the common judgment dated 03.04.2025 passed in Writ Appeal No. 1033 of 2023 and batch was confined to supervising and conducting the election process and restoring the constitutional administration of the Andhra Evangelical Lutheran Church (AELC), and that the said appointment did not confer upon the Controller any independent disciplinary, adjudicatory, or administrative powers in respect of the appointment, ordination, transfer, suspension, removal, or disciplinary control of ordained ministers and pastors under the Constitution and Bye-laws of the AELC. Consequently, direct the learned District Court, Guntur, to receive, number, and adjudicate the Petitioner's Original Petition under Section 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001 on its own merits and in accordance with law, 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 suspend the operation of the Show Notice dated 01.07.2026 issuedcause by the Controller, Respondent No. 3, and all further proceedings pursuant 3 VS,J W.P.No.23241 of 2026 thereto, pending registration and adjudication of the Original Petition before the District Court, Guntur, Counsel for the Petitioner: B SESIBUSHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondents: M SRIKANTH Counsel for the Respondents:GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondents:GP FOR LAW LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS The Court made the following 4 VS,J W.P.No.23241 of 2026 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the objection raised by the learned District Judge, Guntur in S.O.P. No. of 2026, which reads as under: “(1) How this Court is having jurisdiction to entertain the present OP against order passed by the authority constituted as per Judgment of Hon’ble High Court of A.P. in W.A.No.1033 of 2023, passed with agreement of counsel for parties in the Writ Appeal. Explain.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4. 3. On a perusal of the impugned office objection, it can be observed that it is only an office objection with regard to the jurisdiction and maintainability of the O.P., and the petitioner was called upon to explain as to how the said O.P. is maintainable before the learned District Judge. But however, instead of submitting an explanation to the said office objection, the petitioner has straightaway approached this Court challenging the same. 4. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that the petitioner had not submitted any explanation to the objection raised by the learned District Judge and requested this Court to grant liberty to the petitioner to submit an explanation to the said office objection. 5. In view of the above submission, the Writ Petition is disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioner to submit his explanation to the office objection, if any. Upon receipt of such explanation, the learned District Judge 5 VS,J W.P.No.23241 of 2026 shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 31.08.2026 KGR