Convention of Baptist Churches of Northern Circars (Cbcnc) and Another Vs. State of A.P. and Others - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
(i) constitution - misleading - article 226 of constitution of india - suppression of material fact from court with a view to obtain favourable order - held, no relief to parties who misrepresent facts with ulterior motive to mislead the court . (ii) notice - article 226 of constitution of india and section 90 of andhra pradesh education act, 1982 - order of commissioner declaring successful election of one as convener - stay on election result on a revision by petitioner challenging order of commissioner - government vacated stay as high court declared election valid - held, as no prejudice is caused to petitioner government's order vacating stay without giving notice to petitioner maintainable. - - 8. it is further submitted that the first petitioner was not the president of the organisation as he had submitted resignation for the post of president of cbcnc on 5-6-1998 and the said resignation was accepted by the convention of cbcnc and the same was given a wide publicity on14-10-1998 in local newspapers like 'eenadu',a telugu daily newspaper and other leading newspapers and thereafter one smt. however, the university extended leave by only one year ending with 18-4-1982 and clearly informed the said assistant that no further extension of leave would be possible. however, the university extended the joining time up to 30-6-1982. the said assistant failed to join duty on 1-7-1982 and consequently the university deemed him to have vacated the post with effect from 18-4-1982. thereafter, the said assistant filed departmental appeal, which was dismissed.order1. this writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent in passing final orders on the revision filed by the petitioners, without giving notice to them, nor extending the copy of the orders passed by him, pursuant to the stay granted by the first respondent dated 10-8-2000 in reference no.8985/ps.1/2000, as being arbitrary, illegal, violative of article 14 of theconstitution of india and the provision contained in section 90 of a.p. education act and for issuance of a consequential direction to the respondents not to give effect to the orders regarding recognition of the convenor of the education committee of the convention of baptist churches of northern circars (for short, 'cbcnc') till final orders are passed by the second respondent, pursuant to the judgment of this court in wp no.14287 of 2000 dated 24-10-2000.2. the first petitioner is the president of the 'cbcnc', visakhaptanam and the second petitioner is the convenor, education committee of 'cbcnc'. they filed this writ petition assailing the correctness of the orders passed by the first respondent in the revision filed under section 90 of the a.p. education act against the orders of the 2nd respondent in not recognising the second petitioner as convenor of the education committee, as arbitrary, illegal and violative of article 14 of the constitution of india.3. it is submitted that cbcnc is a christian religious organisation functioning in the coastal districts of andhra pradesh, which had established and running 214 schools, which are recognised and aided by the state government.4. the post of the convenor is an elective post, elected by the general body of the congregation. the convenor in his turn appoints correspondents to various schools. though the convenorship of the cbcnc is away from the purview of the government, the respondent-state government issued orders to inform the name of the person holding the post of convenor of cbcnc through g.o. rt. no.1113 education, dated 31-8-1998 and the same was questioned by way of writ petition no.25865 of 1998 on the ground that the government was interfering with the internal administration ofthe organisation, and a division bench of this court by its judgment dated 19-4-2000 upheld the action of the government. it is further submitted that to restrict the creeping of unauthorised persons into the organisation, os no.51 of 1995 court, visakhaptanam was filed by the petitioners on the file of i additional district munsif. the said suit was decreed in favour of the petitioners. therefore, the group headed by the first petitioner alone is competent to run the educational institutions of the cbcnc.5. it is further submitted by the petitioners that the erstwhile convenor mr. g.j.r. sunand was removed by the general body of the cbcnc and in his place the second petitioner was elected. the first petitioner had sent proposals on 2-2-2000 to the second respondent herein asking him to issue necessary orders recognising the second petitioner as the convenor of the education committee of the cbcnc. but, the second respondent did not pass any orders on the proposals. however, the second respondent by his proceedings dated 29-7-2000 intimated the concerned district educational officer that mr. g.j.r. sunand was still continuing as the convenor of the cbcnc. against the orders of the second respondent directing the concerned district educational officers and regional joint directors to recognise mr. g.j.r. sunand as the convenor of the education committee of the cbcnc, petitioners filed a revision before the first respondent under section 90 of the a.p. education act. as no orders were passed on the proposals sent by the 1st petitioner dated 2-2-2000, wp no.14287 of 2000 was filed, which was disposed of on 24-10-2000 by this court directing the second respondent to pass appropriate orders on the proposal of the petitioners dated 2-2-2000 by giving opportunity to all the parties and to represent their cases through counsel. thereafter, on 10-8-2000 the first respondent granted stayill the said revision. but, ultimately, after coming to know of the orders of this court, the first respondent vacated the said interim orders of stay on 7-11-2000 and directed the second respondent to pass appropriate orders. it is alleged that the said stay orders were vacated by the government without giving notice or opportunity to the petitioners. assailing the correctness of the said order, the present writ petition has been filed. the said fact of vacating the interim stay and disposing of the revision came to the knowledge of the petitioners only when a caveat petition was filed by mr. g.j.r. sunand. according to the petitioners, the stay order was vacated on 7-11-2000 to circumvent the orders passed by the high court on 24-10-2000 in writ petition no. 14287 of 2000.6. the main contention raised by the petitioners in this writ petition is that when once the government stayed the proceedings of the second respondent while entertaining the revision on 10-8-2000, it ought not to have vacated the interim stay on 7-11-2000 without giving any opportunity to them. therefore, the order passed by the first respondent vacating the stay earlier granted is in utter violation of the principles of natural justice and thus the same is liable to be set aside.7. on the other hand, an application was filed by mr. g.j.r. sunand in wpmp no.28834 of 2000 seeking to be impleaded as a party respondent in the writ proceedings and is accordingly ordered. !t is stated in the said petition that when the orders passed by the first respondent are being questioned in this writ petition, the petitioners ought to have impleaded him as a party respondent in all fairness as he is the affected party. it is prayed that on the said ground itself, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. he has further submitted that the second petitioner is not the convenor of cbcnc education committee and hence hisstatement that he is the convenor of the cbcnc of the education committee is false. when once he is not the convenor of the education committee, he has no locus standi to represent the convention of cbcnc. further, the post of convenor is an elective post and he was elected by the general body of the convention for a period of five years i.e., 1997-2002 and thus he is still holding the post of convenor of the said organisation. the same was communicated to the 2nd respondent-commissioner and director of school education, government of andhra pradesh, hyderabad, who in his turn, intimated to all the concerned district educational officers and regional joint directors. aggrieved by the same, the second petitioner filed a revision petition before the government of andhra pradesh-1st respondent and also filed writ petition no.23979 of 1998 and obtained direction to dispose of his revision petition. pursuant to that, the government of andhra pradesh after considering the rival claims issued g.o. rt. no.1113, dated 31-8-1998. challenging the said order, the second petitioner and many others filed writ petition no.25865 of 1998 and batch and a division bench of this court by a common order dated 19-4-2000 disposed of the batch of the said writ petitions on 19-4-2000 upholding the validity of the said government order. therefore, by virtue of the above judgment, his election as the convenor of the said organisation is confirmed and the orders passed by the division bench are binding on the petitioners. therefore, the claim of the petitioners in the present writ petition is contrary to the judgment of the division bench and the same is liable to be dismissed.8. it is further submitted that the first petitioner was not the president of the organisation as he had submitted resignation for the post of president of cbcnc on 5-6-1998 and the said resignation was accepted by the convention of cbcnc and the same was given a wide publicity on14-10-1998 in local newspapers like 'eenadu', a telugu daily newspaper and other leading newspapers and thereafter one smt. t.c.h. immanuel was elected as the president of the convention and as on today she is continuing as the president. suppressing the above said facts, the present writ petition is filed. therefore, the petitioners have not come to the court with clean hands. hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. it was also denied that he was removed by the general body of the cbcnc and in his place, the second petitioner was elected as the convenor. further, when once the first petitioner was not the president of the organisation, the action of submitting proposals dated 2-2-2000 to the second respondent asking him to pass necessary orders recognising the second petitioner as the convenor of the convention and also to recognise the persons appointed by him as the correspondents of various schools situated in the districts of northern circars is untenable and illegal. in view of the common orders passed by the division bench in wp no.25865 of 1998 and batch on 19-4-2000, a consequential order was passed by the 2nd respondent through his proceedings dated 29-7-2000 in rc.no.2394/b2-1/97 recognising him as the convenor and directing the deos and rjds to that effect. therefore, the said order of the 2nd respondent cannot be questioned in a writ petition. it is further submitted that against the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 29-7-2000, the revision petition alleged to have been filed by the petitioners herein is not maintainable under section 90 of a.p. education act. the above said proceedings were issued by the 2nd respondent by virtue of the judgment of the division bench of this court in a batch of writ petitions in wp no.25865 of 1998 and batch and therefore, the revision itself is not maintainable.9. it is further submitted that the petitioners herein filed wp no.14287 of2000 without imp leading him as party-respondent and on coming to know about the filing of the said writ petition, he opposed it by impleading himself as a third-respondent. while disposing of the said writ petition, this court directed the 2nd respondent to consider the pleas of the petitioners and the 3rd respondent keeping in view the judgment of the division bench of this court in wp no.25865 of 1998 and batch dated 19-4-2000 as stated above. accordingly, the matter was taken up by the 2nd respondent on 4-11-2000 and reserved it for orders.10. after coming to know of the orders passed by this court in wp no.14287 of 2000 directing both parties to represent their cases through counsel before the 2nd respondent who was further directed to pass appropriate orders keeping in view the division bench judgment of this court in wp no.25865 of 1998 and batch, the 1st respondent considered the revision petition filed by the petitioners herein and disposed of the same on 7-11-2000 by vacating the interim orders granted earlier, and directing the 2nd respondent to pass appropriate orders in view of the division bench judgment of this court in wp no.25865 of 1998 and batch. by virtue of vacating the above said interim order in the revision by the 1st respondent without giving notice to the petitioners, the petitioners are no way affected. therefore, the question of issuing any notice or giving opportunity to the petitioners does not arise. ultimately, as directed by this court, the 2nd respondent has to pass orders accepting or rejecting the proposals submitted by the petitioners on 2-2-2000.11. basing on the above stated reasons, it is submitted that the petitioners have approached this court without disclosing the real facts; on the other hand, they have misrepresented the facts. further, by vacating the interim order on 7-11-2000 in therevision, the petitioners are no way affected; therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.12. from the above facts, it is evident that one mr. g.j.r. sunand was elected as the convenor of cbcnc for a period of 5 years from 1997 to 2002 by a general body of cbcnc and he appointed his own persons as correspondents to various schools run by the said cbcnc. on the other hand, the petitioner no.2 stated to have been elected by the same general body as convenor has also appointed his own persons as correspondents to various schools run by the organisation and he has submitted his proposals through the 1st petitioner to the 2nd respondent for approval on 2-2-2000. when the government had directed cbcnc through g.o. rt. no.1113, dated 31-8-1998 to communicate the name of the convenor to the government, wp no.25865 of 1998 and batch were filed questioning the correctness of the same alleging interference into the internal administration of the organisation and ultimately, a division bench of this court upheld the action of the government. accordingly, the 2nd respondent had recognised mr. g.j.r. sunand as convenor through proceedings dated 29-7-2000. against that order, a revision was filed before the government by the petitioners and obtained interim stay on 10-8-2000. further, when no action was taken on the proposals submitted by the second petitioner for approval of the candidates appointed by him as correspondents to various institutions, a writ petition (wp no.14287 of 2000) was filed. while disposing of the said writ petition, this court directed the parties to appear before the second respondent represented by their respective counsel and present their case and further directed the second respondent to dispose of the matter according to law. after receipt of orders from this court, the government vacated the interim stay granted in the revision on 10-8-2000 anddirected the second respondent to pass appropriate orders keeping in view the said judgment of a division bench of this court. questioning the above said order, the present writ petition is filed.13. it is pertinent to note that some of the statements made by the petitioners are not correct as submitted by the proposed respondent, mr. g.j.r. sunand, that the first petitioner is not the president of the convention as he had submitted his resignation on 5-6-1998 and the same was accepted and one smt. t.c.h. immanuel was elected as president and she is continuing as on today and that the second petitioner was not elected as convenor by the general body of the organisation. therefore, they cannot represent the organisation. further, to the counter filed by the proposed respondent, no reply was filed by the petitioners denying the statements made therein. therefore, it can be presumed that what has been stated by mr. g.j.r. sunand is correct. therefore, the petitioners have not approached this court with clean hands. on the other hand, they have misrepresented the facts with an ulterior motive to mislead the court and to obtain favourable orders, which action on the part of the petitioners, has to be deprecated.14. the question of vacating the stay order granted earlier on 10-8-2000 in the revision petition filed before the government by the first respondent is concerned, it is the contention of the petitioners that while vacating the stay order granted on 10-8-2000 in the revision petition no opportunity was given to them. there is no need to observe the principles of natural justice in each and every case while passing the orders unless the orders passed are prejudicial to the concerned person. the government vacated the stay granted on 10-8-2000 on the ground that the high court has directed the 2nd respondent to dispose of the proposal submitted on 2-2-2000 bythe petitioners after hearing the parties. if 2nd respondent approves the proposal of petitioners, there is no need to consider and pass orders in revision by the government. in this connection, it is pertinent to refer the case decided by the supreme court in aligarh muslim university v. mansoor ali khan, 2000 (7) scc 729. the facts of the said case are that a laboratory assistant working in aligarh muslim university obtained two years extraordinary leave with effect from 18-4-1979 to join at a1-fatah university, tripoli, libya. before the expiry of the said leave period, the said assistant applied for extension of leave by three years. however, the university extended leave by only one year ending with 18-4-1982 and clearly informed the said assistant that no further extension of leave would be possible. however, before the receipt of the said order, the said assistant entered into fresh contract in libya for two years. on 18-1-1982 he sought extension of leave by one more year ending with 17-4-1983. rejecting his request the university informed him that his request for further extension was refused and he should resume duties by 15-5-1982, failing which he would be deemed to have vacated the post and ceased to be in university service. however, the university extended the joining time up to 30-6-1982. the said assistant failed to join duty on 1-7-1982 and consequently the university deemed him to have vacated the post with effect from 18-4-1982. thereafter, the said assistant filed departmental appeal, which was dismissed. writ petition filed by him was also dismissed by a single judge of the high court holding that he had not expressed any intention to join till his assignment in libya was over and that without waiting for extension, he had entered into a fresh contract in libya, that he did not avail of the joining time as extended and that his conduct did not justify any relief. but on appeal, a division bench allowed the plea of the said employee on the ground that according to the leaveregulations (as amended by the executive council on 12-2-1970), the non-teaching staff were governed by the same regulations applicable to the teaching staff and the said regulations visualised extraordinary leave being granted 'ordinarily' for 3 years, if leave was necessary for accepting employment outside and that the total period of extension of leave permitted was 5 years. in the case of an officer who had availed leave for foreign employment, he could avail leave again for 5 years after rejoining. the assistant had not resumed duty by 1-7-1982 in terms of rule 5(8) of the leave rules, 1969 and therefore a show-cause under rule 5(8) should have been issued to him. nor was there anything on record to indicate that the absence of the appellant from duty after expiry of leave was taken to be 'misconduct' within clause (ii) of rule 5(8) of the leave rules, 1969. in any case, automatic cessation from service would not take place before expiry of 5 years as would be seen from rule 10(c) of the service rules, 1972. here, the total period did not exceed 5 years including period of sanctioned leave and hence there was no automatic cessation of service.15. on the stated facts and circumstances, when an issue was raised that the order was passed by the university without following the principles of natural justice, the supreme court observed :'..... as pointed recently in m.c. mehtav. union of india, : [1999]3scr1173 , there can be certain situations in which an order passed in violation of natural justice need not be set aside under article 226 of the constitution of india. for example, where no prejudice is caused to the person concerned, interference under article 226 is not necessary. similarly, if the quashing of the order which is in breach of natural justice is likely to result in revival of another order which is in itself illegal asin gadde venkateswara rao v. govt. of a.p., : [1966]2scr172 , it is not necessary to quash the order merely because of violation of principles of natural justice'. '..... at one time, it was held in ridgev. baldwin, 1964 ac 40, that breach of principles of natural justice was in itself treated as prejudice and that no other 'de facto' prejudice needed to be proved. but, since then the rigour of the rule has been relaxed not only in england but also in our country. in s.l. kapoor v. jagmohan, : [1981]1scr746 , chinnappa reddy, j., followed ridge v. baldwin and set aside the order of supersession of the new delhi metropolitan committee rejecting the argument that there was no prejudice though notice was not given. the proceedings were quashed on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice'..... two exceptionsnamely, if upon admitted or indisputable facts only one conclusion was possible, then in such a case, the principle that breach of natural justice was in itself prejudice, would not apply. in other words if no other conclusion was possible on admitted or indisputable facts, it is not necessary to quash the order which was passed in violation of natural justice. of course, this being an exception, great care must be taken in applying this exception. the principle that in addition to breach of natural justice must also be proved has been developed in several cases. in k.l. tripathi v. state bank of india, : (1984)illj2sc , sabyasachi mukharji, j., (as he then was) also laid down the principle that not mere violation of natural justice but de facto prejudice (other than non-issue of notice) had to be proved.' 16. ultimately it was held that the said case before the apex court will fall within the exceptions stated in s.l. kapoor casethat upon the admitted or indisputable facts only one view was possible and in that event no prejudice can be said to have been caused to mr. mansoor ali khan, though notice has not been issued.17. applying the same principle to the facts and circumstances of the case, against the order passed by the second respondent recognising mr. g.j.r. sunand as convenor, who was elected by the general body of the cbcnc, revision was filed. meanwhile for not passing any order on the proposal submitted by the petitioners dated 2-2-2000, a writ petition was filed and this court by its order directed the parties to approach the second respondent and represent their claims through their respective counsel. consequent to the orders passed by the learned single judge of this court in wp no.14287 of 2000 on 24-10-2000, as stated above, the 1st respondent thought it fit to vacate the interim stay granted earlier and accordingly the order was vacated and directed the 2nd respondent to pass orders keeping in view the said judgment of the division bench of this court. the order passed by the first respondent can also be considered legal on the ground that the first petitioner was not the president of the organisation as on the date of filing of the revision, and secondly the second petitioner is not elected as convenor by the general body of the organisation. therefore, the petitioners cannot submit proposals to the second respondent for approval. consequent to the said judgment dated 19-4-2000 of the division bench of this court, the order dated 29-7-2000 was passed by the second respondent recognising mr. g.j.r. sunand as the convenor of cbcnc. in view of the fact that the first petitioner had resigned as president of the organisation and the second petitioner is not elected as convenor of the organisation, and as the order was passed by the second respondent dated 29-7-2000 based on the said division bench judgment, vacating the interim order granted on10-8-2000 without giving notice to the petitioner would not cause prejudice to them. if once the proposal submitted by the petitioner dated 2-2-2000 is accepted by the 2nd respondent after hearing the parties, the impleading respondent will automatically go out of office and there is no necessity to pass any order in the revision petition by the government. therefore, no prejudice is caused to the rights of the petitioners. on the other hand, based on the judgment of the high court, the 2nd respondent has approved the election of the proposed respondent, g.j.r. sunand, as convenor and consequently the order dated 29-7-2000 was passed recognising him as convenor and directed all the concerned deos and jdrs to recognize the correspondents appointed by him in northern circars districts. therefore, i see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the government vacating the stay order on 7-11-2000.18. before parting with the judgment, it is pointed out that when the petitioners have not made mr. g.j.r. sunand as party respondent, who is going to be the affected by virtue of any order passed by this court, the said sunand himself in his counter stated that the 1st petitioner was not the president on the date of filing of the revision by virtue of his resigning in the year 1998 and another person has been elected as president, that the second petitioner was not elected as convenor by the general body of the organisation. the petitioners have not filed any reply or documents to rebut the said statement made by the implead party-respondent. therefore, what the impleaded respondent has stated is to be treated as true and it can be concluded that the petitioners have suppressed the facts and misrepresented the court with an ulterior motive to get an order in their favour. in those circumstances, i deem it proper to direct the petitioners to pay rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand only) towards costs.19. accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with costs. it is made clear that costs are not imposed by way of penalty.

Judgment:
ORDER

1. This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent in passing final orders on the revision filed by the petitioners, without giving notice to them, nor extending the copy of the orders passed by him, pursuant to the stay granted by the first respondent dated 10-8-2000 in reference No.8985/PS.1/2000, as being arbitrary, illegal, violative of Article 14 of theConstitution of India and the provision contained in Section 90 of A.P. Education Act and for issuance of a consequential direction to the respondents not to give effect to the orders regarding recognition of the Convenor of the Education Committee of the Convention of Baptist Churches of Northern Circars (for short, 'CBCNC') till final orders are passed by the second respondent, pursuant to the judgment of this Court in WP No.14287 of 2000 dated 24-10-2000.

2. The first petitioner is the President of the 'CBCNC', Visakhaptanam and the second petitioner is the Convenor, Education Committee of 'CBCNC'. They filed this writ petition assailing the correctness of the orders passed by the first respondent in the revision filed under Section 90 of the A.P. Education Act against the orders of the 2nd respondent in not recognising the second petitioner as Convenor of the Education Committee, as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

3. It is submitted that CBCNC is a Christian religious organisation functioning in the coastal districts of Andhra Pradesh, which had established and running 214 schools, which are recognised and aided by the State Government.

4. The post of the Convenor is an elective post, elected by the general body of the congregation. The Convenor in his turn appoints Correspondents to various schools. Though the Convenorship of the CBCNC is away from the purview of the Government, the respondent-State Government issued orders to inform the name of the person holding the post of Convenor of CBCNC through G.O. Rt. No.1113 Education, dated 31-8-1998 and the same was questioned by way of Writ Petition No.25865 of 1998 on the ground that the Government was interfering with the internal administration ofthe organisation, and a Division Bench of this Court by its judgment dated 19-4-2000 upheld the action of the Government. It is further submitted that to restrict the creeping of unauthorised persons into the organisation, OS No.51 of 1995 Court, Visakhaptanam was filed by the petitioners on the file of I Additional District Munsif. The said suit was decreed in favour of the petitioners. Therefore, the group headed by the first petitioner alone is competent to run the educational institutions of the CBCNC.

5. It is further submitted by the petitioners that the erstwhile Convenor Mr. G.J.R. Sunand was removed by the general body of the CBCNC and in his place the second petitioner was elected. The first petitioner had sent proposals on 2-2-2000 to the second respondent herein asking him to issue necessary orders recognising the second petitioner as the Convenor of the Education Committee of the CBCNC. But, the second respondent did not pass any orders on the proposals. However, the second respondent by his proceedings dated 29-7-2000 intimated the concerned District Educational Officer that Mr. G.J.R. Sunand was still continuing as the Convenor of the CBCNC. Against the orders of the second respondent directing the concerned District Educational Officers and Regional Joint Directors to recognise Mr. G.J.R. Sunand as the Convenor of the Education Committee of the CBCNC, petitioners filed a revision before the first respondent under Section 90 of the A.P. Education Act. As no orders were passed on the proposals sent by the 1st petitioner dated 2-2-2000, WP No.14287 of 2000 was filed, which was disposed of on 24-10-2000 by this Court directing the second respondent to pass appropriate orders on the proposal of the petitioners dated 2-2-2000 by giving opportunity to all the parties and to represent their cases through Counsel. Thereafter, on 10-8-2000 the first respondent granted stayill the said revision. But, ultimately, after coming to know of the orders of this Court, the first respondent vacated the said interim orders of stay on 7-11-2000 and directed the second respondent to pass appropriate orders. It is alleged that the said stay orders were vacated by the Government without giving notice or opportunity to the petitioners. Assailing the correctness of the said order, the present writ petition has been filed. The said fact of vacating the interim stay and disposing of the revision came to the knowledge of the petitioners only when a caveat petition was filed by Mr. G.J.R. Sunand. According to the petitioners, the stay order was vacated on 7-11-2000 to circumvent the orders passed by the High Court on 24-10-2000 in Writ Petition No. 14287 of 2000.

6. The main contention raised by the petitioners in this writ petition is that when once the Government stayed the proceedings of the second respondent while entertaining the revision on 10-8-2000, it ought not to have vacated the interim stay on 7-11-2000 without giving any opportunity to them. Therefore, the order passed by the first respondent vacating the stay earlier granted is in utter violation of the principles of natural justice and thus the same is liable to be set aside.

7. On the other hand, an application was filed by Mr. G.J.R. Sunand in WPMP No.28834 of 2000 seeking to be impleaded as a party respondent in the writ proceedings and is accordingly ordered. !t is stated in the said petition that when the orders passed by the first respondent are being questioned in this writ petition, the petitioners ought to have impleaded him as a party respondent in all fairness as he is the affected party. It is prayed that on the said ground itself, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. He has further submitted that the second petitioner is not the Convenor of CBCNC Education Committee and hence hisstatement that he is the Convenor of the CBCNC of the Education Committee is false. When once he is not the Convenor of the Education Committee, he has no locus standi to represent the convention of CBCNC. Further, the post of Convenor is an elective post and he was elected by the General Body of the Convention for a period of five years i.e., 1997-2002 and thus he is still holding the post of Convenor of the said organisation. The same was communicated to the 2nd respondent-Commissioner and Director of School Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, who in his turn, intimated to all the concerned District Educational Officers and Regional Joint Directors. Aggrieved by the same, the second petitioner filed a revision petition before the Government of Andhra Pradesh-1st respondent and also filed Writ Petition No.23979 of 1998 and obtained direction to dispose of his revision petition. Pursuant to that, the Government of Andhra Pradesh after considering the rival claims issued G.O. Rt. No.1113, dated 31-8-1998. Challenging the said order, the second petitioner and many others filed Writ Petition No.25865 of 1998 and batch and a Division Bench of this Court by a common order dated 19-4-2000 disposed of the batch of the said writ petitions on 19-4-2000 upholding the validity of the said Government Order. Therefore, by virtue of the above judgment, his election as the Convenor of the said organisation is confirmed and the orders passed by the Division Bench are binding on the petitioners. Therefore, the claim of the petitioners in the present writ petition is contrary to the judgment of the Division Bench and the same is liable to be dismissed.

8. It is further submitted that the first petitioner was not the President of the organisation as he had submitted resignation for the post of President of CBCNC on 5-6-1998 and the said resignation was accepted by the Convention of CBCNC and the same was given a wide publicity on14-10-1998 in local newspapers like 'Eenadu', a Telugu daily newspaper and other leading newspapers and thereafter one Smt. T.C.H. Immanuel was elected as the President of the Convention and as on today she is continuing as the President. Suppressing the above said facts, the present writ petition is filed. Therefore, the petitioners have not come to the Court with clean hands. Hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. It was also denied that he was removed by the general body of the CBCNC and in his place, the second petitioner was elected as the Convenor. Further, when once the first petitioner was not the President of the Organisation, the action of submitting proposals dated 2-2-2000 to the second respondent asking him to pass necessary orders recognising the second petitioner as the Convenor of the Convention and also to recognise the persons appointed by him as the Correspondents of various schools situated in the districts of Northern Circars is untenable and illegal. In view of the common orders passed by the Division Bench in WP No.25865 of 1998 and Batch on 19-4-2000, a consequential order was passed by the 2nd respondent through his proceedings dated 29-7-2000 in Rc.No.2394/B2-1/97 recognising him as the Convenor and directing the DEOs and RJDs to that effect. Therefore, the said order of the 2nd respondent cannot be questioned in a writ petition. It is further submitted that against the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 29-7-2000, the revision petition alleged to have been filed by the petitioners herein is not maintainable under Section 90 of A.P. Education Act. The above said proceedings were issued by the 2nd respondent by virtue of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in a batch of writ petitions in WP No.25865 of 1998 and Batch and therefore, the revision itself is not maintainable.

9. It is further submitted that the petitioners herein filed WP No.14287 of2000 without imp leading him as party-respondent and on coming to know about the filing of the said writ petition, he opposed it by impleading himself as a third-respondent. While disposing of the said writ petition, this Court directed the 2nd respondent to consider the pleas of the petitioners and the 3rd respondent keeping in view the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in WP No.25865 of 1998 and Batch dated 19-4-2000 as stated above. Accordingly, the matter was taken up by the 2nd respondent on 4-11-2000 and reserved it for orders.

10. After coming to know of the orders passed by this Court in WP No.14287 of 2000 directing both parties to represent their cases through Counsel before the 2nd respondent who was further directed to pass appropriate orders keeping in view the Division Bench judgment of this Court in WP No.25865 of 1998 and batch, the 1st respondent considered the revision petition filed by the petitioners herein and disposed of the same on 7-11-2000 by vacating the interim orders granted earlier, and directing the 2nd respondent to pass appropriate orders in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in WP No.25865 of 1998 and Batch. By virtue of vacating the above said interim order in the revision by the 1st respondent without giving notice to the petitioners, the petitioners are no way affected. Therefore, the question of issuing any notice or giving opportunity to the petitioners does not arise. Ultimately, as directed by this Court, the 2nd respondent has to pass orders accepting or rejecting the proposals submitted by the petitioners on 2-2-2000.

11. Basing on the above stated reasons, it is submitted that the petitioners have approached this Court without disclosing the real facts; on the other hand, they have misrepresented the facts. Further, by vacating the interim order on 7-11-2000 in therevision, the petitioners are no way affected; therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

12. From the above facts, it is evident that one Mr. G.J.R. Sunand was elected as the Convenor of CBCNC for a period of 5 years from 1997 to 2002 by a General Body of CBCNC and he appointed his own persons as Correspondents to various schools run by the said CBCNC. On the other hand, the petitioner No.2 stated to have been elected by the same general body as Convenor has also appointed his own persons as Correspondents to various schools run by the Organisation and he has submitted his proposals through the 1st petitioner to the 2nd respondent for approval on 2-2-2000. When the Government had directed CBCNC through G.O. Rt. No.1113, dated 31-8-1998 to communicate the name of the Convenor to the Government, WP No.25865 of 1998 and batch were filed questioning the correctness of the same alleging interference into the internal administration of the Organisation and ultimately, a Division Bench of this Court upheld the action of the Government. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent had recognised Mr. G.J.R. Sunand as Convenor through proceedings dated 29-7-2000. Against that Order, a revision was filed before the Government by the petitioners and obtained interim stay on 10-8-2000. Further, when no action was taken on the proposals submitted by the second petitioner for approval of the candidates appointed by him as Correspondents to various institutions, a writ petition (WP No.14287 of 2000) was filed. While disposing of the said writ petition, this Court directed the parties to appear before the second respondent represented by their respective Counsel and present their case and further directed the second respondent to dispose of the matter according to law. After receipt of orders from this Court, the Government vacated the interim stay granted in the revision on 10-8-2000 anddirected the second respondent to pass appropriate orders keeping in view the said judgment of a Division Bench of this Court. Questioning the above said order, the present writ petition is filed.

13. It is pertinent to note that some of the statements made by the petitioners are not correct as submitted by the proposed respondent, Mr. G.J.R. Sunand, that the first petitioner is not the President of the Convention as he had submitted his resignation on 5-6-1998 and the same was accepted and one Smt. T.C.H. Immanuel was elected as President and she is continuing as on today and that the second petitioner was not elected as Convenor by the General Body of the Organisation. Therefore, they cannot represent the Organisation. Further, to the counter filed by the proposed respondent, no reply was filed by the petitioners denying the statements made therein. Therefore, it can be presumed that what has been stated by Mr. G.J.R. Sunand is correct. Therefore, the petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hands. On the other hand, they have misrepresented the facts with an ulterior motive to mislead the Court and to obtain favourable orders, which action on the part of the petitioners, has to be deprecated.

14. The question of vacating the stay order granted earlier on 10-8-2000 in the revision petition filed before the Government by the first respondent is concerned, it is the contention of the petitioners that while vacating the stay order granted on 10-8-2000 in the revision petition no opportunity was given to them. There is no need to observe the principles of natural justice in each and every case while passing the orders unless the orders passed are prejudicial to the concerned person. The Government vacated the stay granted on 10-8-2000 on the ground that the High Court has directed the 2nd respondent to dispose of the proposal submitted on 2-2-2000 bythe petitioners after hearing the parties. If 2nd respondent approves the proposal of petitioners, there is no need to consider and pass orders in revision by the Government. In this connection, it is pertinent to refer the case decided by the Supreme Court in Aligarh Muslim University v. Mansoor Ali Khan, 2000 (7) SCC 729. The facts of the said case are that a Laboratory Assistant working in Aligarh Muslim University obtained two years extraordinary leave with effect from 18-4-1979 to join at A1-Fatah University, Tripoli, Libya. Before the expiry of the said leave period, the said Assistant applied for extension of leave by three years. However, the University extended leave by only one year ending with 18-4-1982 and clearly informed the said Assistant that no further extension of leave would be possible. However, before the receipt of the said order, the said Assistant entered into fresh contract in Libya for two years. On 18-1-1982 he sought extension of leave by one more year ending with 17-4-1983. Rejecting his request the University informed him that his request for further extension was refused and he should resume duties by 15-5-1982, failing which he would be deemed to have vacated the post and ceased to be in University service. However, the University extended the joining time up to 30-6-1982. The said Assistant failed to join duty on 1-7-1982 and consequently the University deemed him to have vacated the post with effect from 18-4-1982. Thereafter, the said Assistant filed departmental appeal, which was dismissed. Writ petition filed by him was also dismissed by a single Judge of the High Court holding that he had not expressed any intention to join till his assignment in Libya was over and that without waiting for extension, he had entered into a fresh contract in Libya, that he did not avail of the joining time as extended and that his conduct did not justify any relief. But on appeal, a Division Bench allowed the plea of the said employee on the ground that according to the LeaveRegulations (as amended by the Executive Council on 12-2-1970), the non-teaching staff were governed by the same Regulations applicable to the teaching staff and the said Regulations visualised extraordinary leave being granted 'ordinarily' for 3 years, if leave was necessary for accepting employment outside and that the total period of extension of leave permitted was 5 years. In the case of an officer who had availed leave for foreign employment, he could avail leave again for 5 years after rejoining. The Assistant had not resumed duty by 1-7-1982 in terms of Rule 5(8) of the Leave Rules, 1969 and therefore a show-cause under Rule 5(8) should have been issued to him. Nor was there anything on record to indicate that the absence of the appellant from duty after expiry of leave was taken to be 'misconduct' within Clause (ii) of Rule 5(8) of the Leave Rules, 1969. In any case, automatic cessation from service would not take place before expiry of 5 years as would be seen from Rule 10(c) of the Service Rules, 1972. Here, the total period did not exceed 5 years including period of sanctioned leave and hence there was no automatic cessation of service.

15. On the stated facts and circumstances, when an issue was raised that the order was passed by the University without following the principles of natural justice, the Supreme Court observed :

'..... as pointed recently in M.C. Mehtav. Union of India, : [1999]3SCR1173 , there can be certain situations in which an order passed in violation of natural justice need not be set aside under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For example, where no prejudice is caused to the person concerned, interference under Article 226 is not necessary. Similarly, if the quashing of the order which is in breach of natural justice is likely to result in revival of another order which is in itself illegal asin Gadde Venkateswara Rao v. Govt. of A.P., : [1966]2SCR172 , it is not necessary to quash the order merely because of violation of principles of natural justice'.

'..... at one time, it was held in Ridgev. Baldwin, 1964 AC 40, that breach of principles of natural justice was in itself treated as prejudice and that no other 'de facto' prejudice needed to be proved. But, since then the rigour of the rule has been relaxed not only in England but also in our country. In S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan, : [1981]1SCR746 , Chinnappa Reddy, J., followed Ridge v. Baldwin and set aside the order of supersession of the New Delhi Metropolitan Committee rejecting the argument that there was no prejudice though notice was not given. The proceedings were quashed on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice'..... Two exceptionsnamely, if upon admitted or indisputable facts only one conclusion was possible, then in such a case, the principle that breach of natural justice was in itself prejudice, would not apply. In other words if no other conclusion was possible on admitted or indisputable facts, it is not necessary to quash the order which was passed in violation of natural justice. Of course, this being an exception, great care must be taken in applying this exception. The principle that in addition to breach of natural justice must also be proved has been developed in several cases. In K.L. Tripathi v. State Bank of India, : (1984)ILLJ2SC , Sabyasachi Mukharji, J., (as he then was) also laid down the principle that not mere violation of natural justice but de facto prejudice (other than non-issue of notice) had to be proved.'

16. Ultimately it was held that the said case before the Apex Court will fall within the exceptions stated in S.L. Kapoor casethat upon the admitted or indisputable facts only one view was possible and in that event no prejudice can be said to have been caused to Mr. Mansoor Ali Khan, though notice has not been issued.

17. Applying the same principle to the facts and circumstances of the case, against the order passed by the second respondent recognising Mr. G.J.R. Sunand as Convenor, who was elected by the General Body of the CBCNC, revision was filed. Meanwhile for not passing any order on the proposal submitted by the petitioners dated 2-2-2000, a writ petition was filed and this Court by its order directed the parties to approach the second respondent and represent their claims through their respective Counsel. Consequent to the orders passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in WP No.14287 of 2000 on 24-10-2000, as stated above, the 1st respondent thought it fit to vacate the interim stay granted earlier and accordingly the order was vacated and directed the 2nd respondent to pass orders keeping in view the said judgment of the Division Bench of this Court. The order passed by the first respondent can also be considered legal on the ground that the first petitioner was not the President of the Organisation as on the date of filing of the revision, and secondly the second petitioner is not elected as Convenor by the General Body of the Organisation. Therefore, the petitioners cannot submit proposals to the second respondent for approval. Consequent to the said judgment dated 19-4-2000 of the Division Bench of this Court, the order dated 29-7-2000 was passed by the second respondent recognising Mr. G.J.R. Sunand as the Convenor of CBCNC. In view of the fact that the first petitioner had resigned as President of the Organisation and the second petitioner is not elected as Convenor of the Organisation, and as the order was passed by the second respondent dated 29-7-2000 based on the said Division Bench judgment, vacating the interim order granted on10-8-2000 without giving notice to the petitioner would not cause prejudice to them. If once the proposal submitted by the petitioner dated 2-2-2000 is accepted by the 2nd respondent after hearing the parties, the impleading respondent will automatically go out of office and there is no necessity to pass any order in the revision petition by the Government. Therefore, no prejudice is caused to the rights of the petitioners. On the other hand, based on the judgment of the High Court, the 2nd respondent has approved the election of the proposed respondent, G.J.R. Sunand, as Convenor and consequently the order dated 29-7-2000 was passed recognising him as Convenor and directed all the concerned DEOs and JDRs to recognize the Correspondents appointed by him in Northern Circars districts. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Government vacating the stay order on 7-11-2000.

18. Before parting with the judgment, it is pointed out that when the petitioners have not made Mr. G.J.R. Sunand as party respondent, who is going to be the affected by virtue of any order passed by this Court, the said Sunand himself in his counter stated that the 1st petitioner was not the President on the date of filing of the revision by virtue of his resigning in the year 1998 and another person has been elected as President, that the second petitioner was not elected as Convenor by the General Body of the Organisation. The petitioners have not filed any reply or documents to rebut the said statement made by the implead party-respondent. Therefore, what the impleaded respondent has stated is to be treated as true and it can be concluded that the petitioners have suppressed the facts and misrepresented the Court with an ulterior motive to get an order in their favour. In those circumstances, I deem it proper to direct the petitioners to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards costs.

19. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with costs. It is made clear that costs are not imposed by way of penalty.