Mr Anthony Raj vs State Of Karnataka on 8 January, 2020

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Mr Anthony Raj vs State Of Karnataka on 8 January, 2020

Bench: P.S. Dinesh Kumar

                              1




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2020

                            BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR

            WRIT PETITIONS No.29526 OF 2016 &
              29843-29847 OF 2016 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN :

1.     MR. ANTHONY RAJ
       S/O ANTHONYSWAMY
       AGED 46 YEARS
       RESIDENT NO.165, 4TH CROSS
       PATEL MUNIYAPPA LAYOUT
       V. NAGENAHALLI
       BANGALORE-560 032

2.     MR. A. BALARAJU
       S/O LATE ARULAPPA
       AGED 45 YEARS
       RESIDENT OF NO.129
       V.NAGENAHALLI
       BANGALORE-560 032

3.     MR. ANTHONY SWAMY
       S/O LATE YAGAPPA
       AGED 43 YEARS
       RESIDENT NO.22
       CHURCH BLOCK
       V.NAGENAHALLI
       BANGALORE-560 032

4.     R. JOKIM
       S/O LATE ARULAPPA
       AGED 50 YEARS
       BEHIND CHURCH
       V.NAGENAHALLI
       BANGALORE-560 032
                                   2




5.      MR. ANTHONYSWAMY
        S/O LATE AROGYASWAMY
        AGED 46 YEARS
        RESIDENT OF 1ST B CROSS
        YAGAPPA LAYOUT
        V.NAGENAHALLI
        BANGALORE-560 032

6.      MR. AROGYASWAMY
        S/O LATE DAVIDAPPA
        AGED 47 YEARS
        RESIDENT NO.21
        YAGAPPA LAYOUT
        V.NAGENAHALLI,
        BANGALORE-560 032                     ... PETITIONERS

(BY SMT. TARJANI DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR
    SHRI. B.T. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE)

AND :

1.      STATE OF KARNATAKA
        BY THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
        INFANTRY ROAD
        BANGALORE-560 001

2.      THE REV. BERNARD MORASS
        ARCHBISHOP OF BANGALORE DIOCESE
        ARCHBISHOPS RESIDENCE
        MILLERS ROAD
        BANGALORE-560 052

3.      REV. VINCENT SANTHOSH
        PARISH PRIEST
        CHURCH OF ST. PAUL THE HERMIT
        V.NAGANAHALI, R.T.NAGAR
        BANGALORE-560 032

4.      THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
        HEBBAL POLICE STATION
        HEBBAL
        BANGALORE-560 024                    ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SHRI. M. VINOD KUMAR AGA FOR R1 & R4;
    SHRI. RUPERT M. ROSARIO, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)
                                  3




       THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT IN THE
NATURE OF WRIT OF PROHIBITION AND DECLARE THE PENALTY
UNDER CANON 1373 OF CODE OF CANON LAW IN SO FAR IT RELATES
TO CLOSURE OF CHURCH BY THE APOSTOLIC SEE OR THE ORDINARY
IS AGAINST THE RIGHTS OF THE PARISHIONERS OF A CHURCH
BELONGING TO THE CATHOLIC FAITH AND VIOLATION OF ARTICLES
13 (1) AND 13 (2) AND ULTRA VIRES THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
AND ETC.,

      THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                           ORDER

Heard Smt.Tarjani Desai, learned advocate for the petitioners, Shri M.Vinod Kumar, learned AGA for the State and Shri Rupert M.Rosario, learned advocate for respondents No.2 & 3.

2. These petitions are filed by members and parishioners of St. Paul The Hemit Church seeking writ of prohibition and declare penalty under Canon law so far as it relates to closure of church by respondent No.2- Archbishop, Bengaluru.

3. Learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that respondent No.2 is the Archbishop. He addressed a letter dated 19.04.2016 (Annexure-E) to the Commissioner of 4 Police, Bengaluru, conveying that it had come to his notice through social media that there was a plan to install statue of Late Rev. Fr. Chowrappa Selvaraj in the campus of St.Paul the Hermit Church, Nagenahalli, and such installation is prohibited in the church. Accordingly, he sought for suitable action and protection. Acting on the said letter, police have locked the Church. This has deprived petitioners' right to visit and pray in the said church.

4. Learned AGA submitted that these writ petitions are not maintainable as much as it is a private dispute between the members and Archbishop. He further submitted that pursuant to communication dated 19.04.2016 as per Annexure-E, police have not taken any action nor interfered in the affairs of the Church.

5. Learned advocate for the petitioners mainly contended that the functions of the Archbishop bring him within the definition of 'State' under Article 12 of the 5 Constitution of India. Therefore, these writ petitions are maintainable.

6. A careful perusal of Annexure-E and averments made in these petitions disclose that respondent No.2 has passed an order under the Code of Canon law. According to him it is a decree. No material is produced to show that Archbishop's office is 'State' under Article 12 of Constitution of India. Further, in view of the categorical statement made on behalf of the State that police have not interfered with the affairs of the church nor locked the premises as alleged by the petitioners, no interference is warranted exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

7. In the circumstances, there is no merit in these writ petitions and they are accordingly dismissed.

No costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE AV

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court