IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR S.C. AND S.T.

CASES (PROHIBITION) ACT CUM ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, LB NAGAR Election O.P.No.254 of 2013

Between: T.V.Chandra Mohan And Bhargavi Homes Owners Welfare Association Petitioner Respondent

COUNTER FILED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 1. It is submitted that the Petition filed by the Petitioner is not maintainable

either on question of law or on question of facts, therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed in limini. The petitioner has not approached the Hon'ble Court with clean hands. The Petitioner by his attitude is spoiling the conducive atmosphere in the Apartment by developing animosity among the Members of the Association. The Petition is also not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties as one of the reliefs sought for in the Petition by the Petitioner is challenging the election and requesting the Hon'ble court to dissolve the elected body. That without

making the members of the elected Body as parties to the proceedings, the petition is not maintainable. Per contra, it is submitted that the present Body has been elected by following the procedure as contemplated under the Bye laws of the Respondent Association, as such the Petitioner is not entitled to seek the positive relief from the Hon'ble court.

2.

In reply to para 1 of the Petition, it is a fact that the Respondent is a registered

Association under the provisions of A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001 and it consists of 32 members who are the owners, occupants or spouses of the owners of the Residential Flats.

3.

The contents of para 2 of the Petition are true and correct.

4.

In reply to para 3 of the Petition, it is a fact that as per the Bye laws of the

Association, the Association should be governed by Executive Committee who shall be elected by the General Body and the tenure of the Committee is for a period of two years. It is also a fact about the members of the Body as explained

in this paragraph as the same is correct as they were elected in the election held on 17/09/2006. However, the petitioner being the elected General Secretary at

that point of time did not exercise his duties in accordance with the bye laws of the Respondent and one of the irregularities is that he did not give the information annually to the Registrar of Societies as contemplated under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 2001. The said fact is confirmed when the present Secretary had got the information from the Registrar of Societies by making application under the provisions of Right to Information Act. Hence even the elected Body from the day of inception of the Respondent Association, for which the petitioner was the General Secretary, did not exercise its obligations properly.

4.

In reply to para 4 of the Petition, it is denied and the petitioner is put to strict

proof that the Executive Committee has been continuously re-elected, but there was no such election as per bye laws of the Association, but however, holding of posts by the individuals was continued only to have management of the Association rather smoothly. It is also a fact that Clause No.25 of the bye laws empowers the Secretary to do the requirement as stated by the petitioner in the said paragraph.

In reply to para 5 of the petition, the petitioner highlighted Clause No.15 of

the bye laws wherein the Secretary is empowered to conduct the meeting and the said clause empowers the Secretary to convene and conduct the meetings periodically. But the petitioner failed to refer to Clause No.14 of the bye laws wherein the President of the Association is authorised to convene emergency General Body Meetings on the request of requisite number of members.

6.

In reply to para 6 of the petition, it is denied and the Petitioner is put to strict

proof that the Petitioner as the General Secretary of the Executive committee has been in the fore front to put forth the problems and difficulties in respect of the affairs of Bhargavi Homes and in solving the same. Per contra, the petitioner himself has become a trouble maker having confrontations with every individual of the Apartment, as such the question of his solving problems does not arise. The petitioner was not looking eye to eye with various individuals as such his contention that he was available either physically or on phone is totally false and is devoid of any merits. It is denied and the petitioner is put to strict proof that he has been duly elected by the General Body after the tenure of the elected Body which

was elected on 17/09/2006. It is further denied and the Petitioner is put to strict proof that he was elected as the General Secretary of the Respondent in the elections allegedly held on 17/09/2012. It is pertinent to mention that there was

no meeting that was held on 17/09/2012 as per the minutes of the Respondent, as such the question of petitioner being elected as General Secretary on 17/09/2012 is devoid of any merits. It is submitted that in the month of September, 2012 there was a meeting on 13/09/2012 and the election was not the item of the Agenda therein and the said meeting was held and discussed and decided various other issues.

7.

In reply to para 7 of the petition, it is true that Sri K Pratap Reddy as the

President of the Association had issued Notice on 21/03/2013 by conducting an emergency General Body Meeting on 25/03/2013 at 9-00 PM. The said meeting was convened by the President of the Association on the request made by the members of the Association and by using his power under Clause No.14 of the bye laws. The members of the Association were fed up with the attitude of the

petitioner in not convening the meetings to elect the new Body and the petitioner in a high handed manner wanted to claim himself as the Secretary of the Respondent without being elected as such in spite of several oral requests of the members, the petitioner was not conducting meeting as required and requested. Hence the

President had to invoke the extraordinary powers those were available under the bye laws i.e., under Clause No.14.

8.

In reply to para 8 of the petition, it is denied that the petitioner was entitled to

give any notice seeking postponement of the meeting to gain unlawfully as such the meeting was conducted as contemplated.

9.

In reply to para 9 of the petition, it is denied that the President alone has

decided to call for the meeting and issued Notice on 21/03/2012 by exercising his rights as stated above. The intention of calling the said meeting was to elect the new Body and it is denied that the President was not vested with any power to issue Notice and that only General Secretary would have conducted the meeting. It is denied that the President was jealous of the petitioner and with fraudulent intention in collusion with other members had issued the said notice with the sole intention to change the committee by violating the bye laws of the Association. It is submitted that the President of the association has no reason to be jealous of the

petitioner and to meet the demands made by the members only the meeting was conducted and election was held. It is denied that the meeting was not physically attended by the majority of the members but it is a fact that the meeting was conducted after following the clauses in the bye laws of the Respondent, wherein the Petitioner was absent, as such the Petitioner is not entitled to comment upon the proceedings of the said meeting.

10.

In reply to para 10 of the petition, it is a fact that the Notification was made

by Mr M V Pridhviraj, the newly elected secretary on 27/03/2013, who had narrated the happenings on 25/03/2013. petitioner therein are denied. Hence the other contentions of the

It is denied that the President had hatched a foul

play to keep aside the petitioner and it is submitted that neither the President has got such an intention nor there was any necessity for him to do so as alleged. It is emphatically denied and the petitioner is put to strict proof that in the morning hours of 26/03/2013 the newly elected General Secretary has approached the petitioner and told that he along with the President wanted to look all the documents pertaining to the Committee affairs and that the petitioner with a good gesture had handed over the documents to the newly elected Secretary and that the petitioner came to know about the alleged foul play on 27/03/2013. It is pertinent to mention that none of the members had ever visited the petitioner as alleged on 26/03/2013 and there was no conducive atmosphere in the apartment that was created by the petitioner so that any member could have met the petitioner at his residence. Hence the question of the petitioner handing over the documents to the newly elected Secretary does not arise. It is a fact that to have transparency in the conduct of elections, Mr Venkat Raju, a renowned teacher in the Narayana

Concept School, Tarnaka was appointed as a Nodal Officer to conduct the election as requested by the Members. Hence rest of the contentions of the petitioner in the said paragraph are denied and the petitioner is put to strict proof of the same.

11.

In reply to para 11 of the Petition, it is denied that there was no due notice for

conduct of the election and it is submitted that there are no malafide intentions on the part of newly elected members as alleged by the petitioner.

12.

In reply to para 12 of the petition, it is denied and the petitioner is put to

strict proof that the election of the Respondent association held on 25/03/2013 is in violation of bye laws of the Association and against the principles of natural

justice. The petitioner in spite of being invited to participate in the said meeting, though was not entitled to be a voter in the meeting, has avoided the same deliberately as such without being the participant in the said meeting he is not entitled to comment upon the events those have occurred in the said meeting. Hence the petitioner has no valid reason to seek the indulgence of the Hon'ble court to declare the election as illegal and a direction to the new elected body to surrender the original documents and records pertaining to the Notice dated 21/03/2013.

13

In reply to para 13 of the petition, though Sri Pratap Reddy is the husband of

Smt Anitha Reddy, even in terms of Clause No.28 of the Bye laws of the Association any spouse also can represent the owner, participate in the election and also contest the election. Hence the alleged good gesture on the part of the

petitioner is only a creation by the petitioner for the purpose of filing the present petition and at the cost of repetition it is submitted that every clause in the Bye laws is meticulously followed by the Respondent association and there is no violation of any of the rules. Hence the petitioner has no prima facie case or the balance of convenience in his favour and he is not entitled to seek to set aside the election that was held on 25/03/2013. 14. The petitioner has no cause of action to file the petition. However, the

jurisdiction of the Hon'ble court is not denied by the Respondent association. 15. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner being the defaulter in making the

payment of Maintenance charges is disqualified to participate or contest the election in terms of Cl.No.7 of the Bye laws as the petitioner has defaulted to pay the maintenance charges for the months of september, and October, 2012 and thereafter paid the Maintenance charges on being demanded for only one month and even till date the petitioner is due and liable to pay the monthly Maintenance charges for one month. The election that was held on 25/03/2013 was notified to

the Registrar of Societies by informing the Registrar that the following people were elected: Mr Pratap Reddy Mr Prithviraj Mr M Vinod Kumar Mr J V Krishna rao Mr P Ram Mohan Mr Y V Krishna Rao ... ... ...,. .. President Secretary Vice President Treasurer EC Member EC Member

Mr G Satyanarayana

Advisor

In the absence of any of elected members of the Respondent association being arrayed as the parties, the petition is not maintainable for the reason of non joinder of necessary parties.

16.

It is not out of place that the petitioner has defaulted to pay the monthly

Maintenance charges, a notice was issued to him on 31/03/2013 calling upon him not only to pay the arrears of maintenance charges but also to furnish the details of Submersible Pump which was sold by the petitioner unauthorizedly. It was also demanded in the notice to furnish the documents of the association. When the petitioner failed to do the needful, a complaint of theft of sumbersible pump was lodged by the Respondent against the petitioner with SHO, Kushaiguda on 11/4/2013 followed by a complaint lodged before the Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad on 29/06/2013 complaining about inaction by the Police officials of Kushaiguda Police Station.

Hence for all the above said reasons, it is prayed that the Hon'ble court maybe pleased to dismiss the petition with exemplary costs.

Counsel for Respondent Date: /09/2013

Respondent

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR S.C. AND S.T. CASES (PROHIBITION) ACT CUM ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, LB NAGAR Election O.P.No.254 of 2013

Between: T.V.Chandra Mohan Petitioner And Bhargavi Homes Owners Welfare Association Respondent

COUNTER FILED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

Filed on : Filed by

/09/2013

M/s M Sreedhara Murthy Advocates Counsel for Respondent