(Prayer: 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 any order, direction, writ more particularly writ of mandamus declaring the actions of the Respondents, more particularly Respondent no.2, in refusing to accept the application of the Petitioner Church to take on record the amendments of bye-laws of the Petitioner Church happened on 01.09.2022 pursuant to a General Body meeting regarding the constitution of the Petitioner Church as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001 and consequently direct the Respondent No.2 to accept the application of the Petitioner Church to take on record the amendments/alterations made to the bye-laws regarding the constitution of the Petitioner Church and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

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 Respondent No.2 to accept the application of the Petitioner Church to take on record the amendments/alterations made to the bye-laws regarding the constitution of the Petitioner Church and pass

IA NO: 2 OF 2023

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 Implead the petitioners/ Proposed Respondent No. 3 & 4 in the main writ petition in WP.No.1851 of 2023 in the interest of justice and protecting the interest of Indian Pentecostal Church of God (IPC Society) and pass

IA NO: 3 OF 2023

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 vacate the interim order dated 31.01.2023 in I.A.NO:1/2023 of W.P.1851 of 2023 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 May be pleased to grant leaved to the petitioner to file its rejoinder affidavit in WP 1851 of 2023 by allowing this leave petition and pass

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 the 2.d Respondent and direct him to act upon the application submitted on 29.09.2022 not to accord sanction to illegal constitutional amendements in the bylaws of Indian Pentecostal Church of God (IPC) Society with Regd. No. 9/1935, dated 27.11.1935, and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

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 grant interim direction, directing the respondent No.2 to withhold the amendments by any unauthorized person made from IPC Society, and accept only authorized amendments with all the original and genuine proofs and documents of IPC Society. Considered the case of the petitioner, pending disposal of the writ petition 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 May be pleased to grant leave to the Respondent No.2 in the Writ Petition No.5818 of 2023 to file counter affidavit in the above writ petition and pass)

1. Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for the official respondents and the learned senior counsel for the unofficial respondents.

2. The writ petitioner in W.P.No.1851 of 2023 is the 3rd respondent in W.P.No.5818 of 2023. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 in W.P.No.1851 of 2023 are the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in W.P.Nos.5818 of 2023 and the petitioner in W.P.No.5818 of 2023 is not a party respondent in W.P.No.1851 of 2023. For the purpose of convenience, the parties arrayed in W.P.No.1851 of 2023 are referred hereunder.

3. The W.P.No.1851 of 2023 was filed challenging the action of the 2nd respondent in refusing the application of the petitioner church to take on record the amendments of bye-laws of the petitioner church happened on 01.09.2022 pursuant to a General Body meeting regarding the constitution of the petitioner church.

4. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner church was registered before the 2nd respondent at Eluru on 27.11.1935 and has its central working office at Hebronpuram, Kumbanad, Pathanamthitta District, Kerala. Accordingly, the petitioner church is entering into 100th year of its existence. As on date, there are more than 10,000 churches under the petitioner society and 15 lakh believers in India. As there were many representations received by the petitioner church from their believers regarding the need to amend the bye laws of the petitioner church regarding the constitution of the petitioner church, accordingly a notice was issued on 18.05.2002 to all the members of General Council to attend the meeting on 21.06.2022 and 22.06.2022 to discuss on the issue of amendments to the constitution of the petitioner church. As per the notice dated 18.05.2022, a meeting of General Council was conducted at the registered office of the petitioner church wherein it was decided to amend the constitution of the petitioner church. Accordingly, notice to conduct the meeting of General Body of the petitioner church was issued on 30.06.2022 informing all the members of the General Body that a meeting would be conducted on 01.09.2022 to discuss and make necessary amendments in the constitution of the petitioner church. The notice was published in the Indian Express daily Newspaper on 01.07.2022.

5. In the meanwhile, three members of the petitioner church instituted a suit in O.S.No.323 of 2022 on the file of Munsiff Court, Thiruvalla, Kerala seeking a relief inter alia that the notice published by the petitioner church on 01.07.2022 to conduct a meeting of the General Body as void. They also filed Interlocutory Application No.2 of 2022 under Order 39 Rule 1 and Section 151 CPC, 1908 seeking injunction against the petitioner church from conducting a meeting of the General Body on 01.09.2022 as notified and published in the Newspapers. The learned Magistrate vide order dated 31.08.2022 directed the petitioner church that their decision in the General Body meeting would be subject to the result of the suit. The ad-interim order passed by the learned Munsiff dated 31.08.2022 is subsisting and is in force as there was no appeal filed by the plaintiffs in the said suit. The order of the learned Magistrate in I.A.No.2 of 2022 in O.S.No.323 of 2022 is as under:

                  “Respondent No.1 appeared. Respondent No.2 absent. No representation. Set exparte. Respondent No.1 prays time for objection and hearing. Since the General Body meeting of the defendant is to be convened tomorrow for amending the constitution, it is just and proper to direct the defendants that their decision will be subject to the adjudication of this Court. Since the procedure adopted by the defendant is challenged in the case. The allegation in the petition is to be adjudicated by evidence. For objection and hearing”.

6. Since there was no injunction granted against the petitioner church to conduct the meeting of General Body, a meeting was conducted as per schedule on 01.09.2022 and it was decided legitimately in the meeting to amend the bye-laws by changing the constitution of the petitioner church. Accordingly, the constitution of the petitioner church was amended as decided in the General Body meeting of the petitioner church on 01.09.2022. After amending the constitution of the petitioner church, the General President attempted to submit an application before the 2nd respondent to take on record the amendments made in the meeting of the General Body dated 01.09.2022. When the petitioner church went to the office of the 2nd respondent on 07.01.2023 along with an application to take on record the amendments made to the bye-laws, the same was refused by the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent did not even accept the application submitted by the petitioner church. Under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001, a society may alter the provisions of its memorandum of association by way of special resolution with respect to changes of objectives of the society, to amalgamate itself with any society; or to divide itself into two or more societies. Any alteration of the memorandum of the society shall not be valid unless such alteration is registered under the Act. Further a society may, by an ordinary resolution passed by not less than half of the members present and voting alter its bye-laws. Every alteration in the bye-laws of the society should be sent to the Registrar and he shall take it on record if it is not contrary to the provisions of the Act.

7. In the present case, there was no amendment to the memorandum of association of the petitioner church as envisaged under section 8(1) of the Act. There was only a change in the bye-laws wherein the constitution of the petitioner church was amended in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the conditions contained in the memorandum of the petitioner church. Therefore, it is the legal obligation of the 2nd respondent to accept the application of alteration/amendment to the bye-laws of the petitioner society and take them on record since the same is not contrary to the provisions of the Act. However, the 2nd respondent is refusing to even accept the application of the petitioner church to take on record the amendments made to the bye-laws of the petitioner church. It is a settled position of law that the 2nd respondent has no power to refuse any application, be it for registration or for taking the amendments on record.

8. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader relying upon the counter of the 2nd respondent appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that three members of the same society of petitioner church instituted the above said suit and there was an interim order as stated above. The said learned Munsiff Court granted the above said interim orders stating that any decision would be subject to the result of the suit and the same is pending for adjudication. In view of the same, some disputes arose between the society members of the petitioner church with regard to the amendments of the constitution. The President of the society submitted an application on 07.01.2023 for acceptance to the office of the 2nd respondent by stating that the constitution of the petitioner church was amended as decided in the General Body meeting of the petitioner church on 01.09.2022 and requested to accept and to take the same on record. While the issue is pending before the 2nd respondent, they approached the Hon’ble High Court and filed this writ petition.

9. The President of the society submitted another application on 09.02.2023 for acceptance to amend the constitution. Then the 2nd respondent issued proceedings vide Memo No.G1/469/2023, dated 25.02.2023 by intimating that they have not followed the Section (2) & (3) of the A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001 for filing amendment of society and also informed that previous filing of amendment is dated 25.03.2004. Amendment Page No.7(3) the quorum for the General Body shall be 151 members present in person and No.7(4) notice of the General Body meeting shall be given clear 60 days before the day of the meeting and shall be sent to all State/Region Offices and also published in at least one National Daily English Newspaper of wide circulation. The State/Regional Office should intimate all local churches under their jurisdiction at least 30 days prior to the General Body meeting. Since the petitioner failed to follow the procedure he was informed to follow the Section 8(2) & (3) of the A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001 and he was called upon to submit the required information and documents along with application for amendment of society.

10. In the present case, the petitioner (President of the Society) has not followed the procedure under the Act and moreover there are several disputes between the committee members of the society. The other members of the society have sent legal notice to the 2nd respondent on 31.08.2022 and 29.09.2022 by indicating that the amendments of constitution is not correct and the same was made without following procedure and rules contemplated under the Registration Act and requested not to accord sanction to the illegal amendments brought by the President of the Society, which shows that the petitioner society is having disputes between them. Hence as per Section 8(2) & (3) of the Act, if any amendment of memorandum and bye-laws are required, a resolution will be passed by not less than half of the members present and voting to alter its bye-laws. Moreover there is a suit pending on the same issue. So unless and until the requisite majority of the members voted for the amendment of constitution of bye-laws, it is not feasible as per rules contemplated under the Societies Registration Act.

11. Similarly, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.3 & 4 relying upon their counter submits that the very language employed in Section (5) of the Act makes it abundantly clear that the power of the Registrar to take an amendment on record is expressly conditioned by the words “however it is not contrary to the provisions of the Act”. The said phrase cannot be read narrowly or in isolation, but necessarily includes within its scope compliance with all the mandatory provisions of the Act, including the procedural requirements prescribed under Section 8(2) as well as the statutory obligations under Sections 11 and 12(g) and other provisions of the A.P. Act. The expression “not contrary to the provisions of the Act” necessarily means not only substantive conformity but also strict compliance with the statutory procedure and safeguards laid down under the Act. The General Body consisting of delegates elected from about 8000 churches spread across the world is the apex body. As per the bye-laws of the petitioner, the General Body consists of credential holding ministers of the IPC and duly elected representatives of the local churches, namely one representative for churches having membership of 21 to 50, two representatives for churches having membership of 51 to 100, three representatives for churches having membership of 101 to 500 and four representatives for churches having membership of 501 and above, and such representatives shall be communicant members of the local church for at least five years and shall have completed 25 years of age. From among these General Body, a General Council consisting of 126 members is elected for a term of three years, which includes the executive office bearers. Apart from the above, there are State Councils within India and Regional Councils outside India.

12. Even according to the petitioner’s own case, only 1087 persons were present. Therefore, approval of not less than 544 members by voting was mandatory. No such voting took place and no such resolution was passed. The amendment application dated 07.01.2023 submitted before the Registrar bears only seven signatures and was submitted unilaterally by Mr. Valson T.Abraham without consulting either the General Council or the General Body. The seal and format used therein are different from the official records and bye-laws of the church clearly disclosing forgery and fabrication. The prayer in the other writ petition is also to direct the 2nd respondent therein to act upon the application submitted on 29.09.2022 for not according sanction to illegal constitutional amendments in the bye-laws of the Society of the 3rd respondent therein with Regd.No.9/1935 dated 27.11.1935.

13. In reply, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the objections / clarifications sought by the 2nd respondent vide Memo dated 25.02.2023, the petitioner submitted an application dated 29.05.2023 enclosing all the necessary documents including the attendance register of the General Body meeting, notices issued on the State/Regional offices and Newspaper publications relating to the meeting, clearly evidencing the compliance with the procedural requirements under the Act. He further submits that with reference to the scope of Section 8 of the A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001, the 2nd respondent is not required to undertake any adjudicatory examination of internal procedural compliance beyond the limited statutory scrutiny contemplated under the Act. He further submits that on submission of the above said application dated 29.05.2023 along with the documents required by the petitioner as stated above, the same was accepted and received by the 2nd respondent and no further communication was made by the said respondent.

14. In view of the above said facts and circumstances and upon consideration of the rival submissions made, it is clear that the above said conducting of General Body meeting and the proposed amendment to the above said bye-laws of the society is the subject matter of the above said suit and interim order passed therein. Upon submission of the above said application by the petitioner society for the amendments of the bye-laws of the petitioner church, the 2nd respondent issued the above said Memo dated 25.02.2023 for which the petitioner re-submitted all the necessary documents along with the above said application dated 29.05.2023 which was accepted and received. As there is no further correspondence from the 2nd respondent addressed to the petitioner on the said issue pursuant to the above said application of the petitioner dated 29.05.2023, no further orders are necessary in these two writ petitions at this stage, as the cause does not survive for the same. However, liberty is given to the parties concerned in these two writ petitions to work out their remedies in accordance with law if there is any fresh cause of action. Subject to either further orders in the above said suit or final result of the same or on any other developments in the matter giving rise to such other cause of action, then the parties concerned are also at liberty to avail the remedies under law.

15. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are disposed of. Interim orders if any, are deemed to have been vacated. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.