Kerala High Court
St. Peter S And St.Paul S Orthodox Syrian ... vs State Of Kerala on 12 August, 2020
Author: A.Muhamed Mustaque
Bench: A.Muhamed Mustaque
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 21ST SRAVANA, 1942
WP(C).No.8528 OF 2019(M)
PETITIONER/S:
1 ST. PETER S AND ST.PAUL S ORTHODOX SYRIAN CHURCH
(CHALISSERY PALLI)
CHALISSERY P.O.CHALISSERY VILLAGE,PATTAMBI TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679 536, REPRESENTED BY VICOR
2 REV.FR. MATHEW JACOB PUTHUSSERY,
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O LATE YACOB, VICAR, ST.PETERS AND ST. PAULS
SYRIAN CHURCH, CHALISSERY P.O.CHALISSERY VILLAGE,
PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679 536
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
SRI.ROSHEN D.ALEXANDER,SC,INSTIT.OF LAN
SMT.TINA ALEX THOMAS
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO STATE OF
KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
2 THE CHEIF SECRETARY,
GOVT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
3 THE STATE POLICE CHIEF,
POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
4 THE INSPECTORGENERAL OF POLCIE,
NORTH ZONE, THRISSUR RANGE, PIN 680003.
5 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
PALAKKAD,
6 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
PALAKKAD
7 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLCIE,
SHORNUR
8 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
OTTAPALAM.
9 CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT
10 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
CHALISSERY-679 536
11 ELIAS MAR ATHANASIUS,
SIMHASANA VALIYAPALLY, THURUTHISSERY, MAKKAD
P.O.CHENGAMANADU, ERNAKULAM
12 FR. ELDHO M.JOY,
MAZHUVANCHERYPARAMPATH HOUSE, CHALISERYP.O. PALAKKD
679 536
13 FR. N.K.YAKOB,
S/O LATE FR. KURIEN, NEDUVELI, PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE,
CHALISERYP.O. PALAKKD 679 536
14 JAMES DAVID,
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O DAVID, ARIMBOOR HOUSE, CHALISERYP.O. PALAKKD
679 536
15 GIJO JACOB,
KANNANAYIKKAL HOUSE, KADAVALLOOR P.O. PIN 680 543.
16 DR. PRADEEP,
S/O JACOB, ARIMBOOR HOUSE, CHALISERYP.O. PALAKKD
679 536
17 JISHIN GEORGE,
S/O GEORGEKUTTY, CHERUVATHOOR HOUSE,
P.O.CHALISERYP.O. PALAKKD 679 536
18 ALYAS K.A,
S/O ABRAHAM THOPIL, KIDANGATHU HOUSE, KADAVALLOOR
P.O.KALLUMPURAM-680 543.
19 GIBIN GEORGE,
S/O GEORGE, CHERUVATHOOR HOUSE, CHALISERYP.O.
PALAKKD 679 536
20 A.V.PAPPACHAN,
S/O VAREETH, ARIMBOOR HOUSE, CHALISERYP.O. PALAKKD
679 536
21 P.SOLOMON,
S/O UKKRU, KANNANAYIKAL HOUSE, P.O.CHALISSERY,
PALAKKAD-679 536
22 P.U.RAJAN,
S/O UKKRU, KANNANAYILKKAL HOUSE, CHALISERYP.O.
PALAKKD 679 536
23 TITUS DAVID,
S/O DAVID (LATE).P.O.CHALISSERY, ARIMBOOR HOUSE,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679 536
24 C.T.GEORGEKUTTY,
S/O THARU, CHERUVATHOOR HOUSE, P.O.CHALISSERY-679
536
25 ANIL K JOSE,
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O JOSE, KOLLANALLUR HOUSE, KADAVALLOOR
P.O.THRISSUR- 680 543.
26 MANOJ A.P
SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED
R1-10 BY SRI.K.V.SOHAN, STATE ATTORNEY
R11, R13-20, R23-24 BY ADV. SRI.P.RAVINDRAN (SR.)
R11, R13-20, R23-24 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.ELIAS
R11, R13-20, R23-24 BY ADV. SRI.SREEDHAR RAVINDRAN
R26 BY ADV. AJAY BEN JOSE
OTHER PRESENT:
K V SOHAN STATE ATTORNEY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-
07-2020, THE COURT ON 12-08-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
====================
W.P.(C).No.8528/2019
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated this the 12th day of August, 2020
J U D G M E N T
This writ petition is filed for police protection.
2. The dispute between two factions of a church led to the filing of this writ petition. The first petitioner, St.Peter's and St.Paul's Orthodox Syrian Church (Chalissery Palli) is one of the Parish Churches of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church. In the light of the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in K.S.Varghese & Ors. v. St.Peter's & St.Paul's Syrian Orthodox Church & Ors. [(2017) 15 SCC 333], Parish Churches under the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church are governed by the 1934 Constitution.
3. The case of the second petitioner is that he is the Vicar appointed by Yuhanon Mar Meletius Metropolitan, Diocesan of Thrissur Diocese. Ext.P1 is the kalpana issued by the Yuhanon Mar Meletius Metropolitan, Diocesan of Thrissur, Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church. [W.P.(C).No.8528/2019] -:2:-
4. The first petitioner is the Church. The second petitioner is the Vicar. They seek the following relief in the writ petition:
Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction compelling respondents 1 to 10 to render adequate and sufficient police protection to the life of the second petitioner and other Clergy including the Vicar, Priests, Deacons, Prelates, Metropolitans and the Catholicos of the Malankara Orthodox Church appointed under the 1934 Constitution, to conduct religious services in the first petitioner church, its cemetery and kurishadies and the Parishioners of the first petitioner church who declare allegiance to the 1934 Constitution, in participating such religious services without any obstruction, interruption or hindrance from Respondents 11 to 25, their men, agents or followers of Jacobite faction and anybody claiming under them in the interest of justice.
5. A civil suit was instituted in regard to the church. That suit was numbered even before the leave under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code was granted. Taking note of this irregularity, the suit was struck off by Ext.P3 order. This was challenged before this Court. This Court affirmed the order of the court below. Thereupon, the matter was taken before the Apex Court. The Apex Court in the light of the dictum laid down in K.S. Varghese Case (supra) disposed the civil appeal as per Ext.P5 holding that there [W.P.(C).No.8528/2019] -:3:- is no scope for a multiplicity of cases in various courts and the appeal would stand disposed on the basis of K.S. Varghese judgment. The declaration of law by the Apex Court would bind all parish churches under the Malankara Church. The Apex Court judgment was rendered in a representative suit. Therefore, there cannot be any quarrel on the proposition that the entire parish churches under the Malankara Church are to be governed by the 1934 Constitution.
6. The petitioners represent Orthodox faction of the Malankara Church. According to them, the party respondents represent the Patriarch faction. The petitioners submit that inspite of the declaration of law in K.S.Varghese case (supra), the party respondents are not allowing the petitioners to administer religious services. It is also submitted that they are not allowing the petitioners to render the administration of the church in accordance with the 1934 Constitution.
7. In this matter, the respondents 11, 13 to 19 and 23 and 24 filed a counter affidavit. They would contend that [W.P.(C).No.8528/2019] -:4:- the second petitioner is not appointed in accordance with the 1934 Constitution. It is further submitted that Yuhanon Mar Meletius Metropolitan, Diocesan of Thrissur, was not appointed as Metropolitan under the 1934 Constitution. According to them, Yuhanon Mar Meletius Metropolitan, Diocesan of Thrissur was consecrated by the Patriarch of Antioch directly and without reference to the 1934 Constitution. It is further submitted that the 14 th respondent is the Vicar.
8. The dispute as above clearly would show that a law and order situation prevails demanding interference of this Court. The 14th respondent is asserting his right to carry out religious services. Absolutely, no documents are made available before this Court by the 14th respondent to show that he was appointed in accordance with the 1934 Constitution. The party respondents went on denying the right of Yuhanon Mar Meletius Metropolitan to act as the Diocesan of Thrissur. Admittedly, the first petitioner church is coming under the Thrissur Diocese. This Court in a recent judgment in Mar Miletius Yuhanon v. Mar Thomas [W.P.(C).No.8528/2019] -:5:- Dionysius and Others [2020 (4) KHC 14] declared the authority of Mar Miletius Yuhanon Metropolitan. In the light of the aforesaid judgment, this Court can easily conclude that the second petitioner is the Vicar, legally appointed by the Yuhanon Mar Meletius Metropolitan, Diocesan of Thrissur.
9. This Court often sees that in such disputes, for one reason or the other an attempt is being made by the Patriarch faction to deny the right of Vicars and others appointed in accordance with the 1934 Constitution, to carry out religious services. This Court in Marthoman Church, Mulanthuruthy & Ors. v. State of Kerala and Others [2020 (3) KHC 448] held that when law and order situation arises, the constitutional courts alone can render justice to the parties. When a party is bound by the direction of the Apex Court, shirking its obedience to the binding judgment resulting to law and order, this Court can very well invoke mandamus to ensure that the judgment of the Apex Court is enforced. The civil court cannot invoke the power of execution as law and order is beyond the manageable [W.P.(C).No.8528/2019] -:6:- standards of such civil court. It is appropriate to refer paragraph 11 of the above judgment.
Law and order is a matter of governance. The civil court has no role in itself to interfere or supervise the matter of governance. The civil court has only limited jurisdiction and power. It can order police assistance as an aid to execute the decree. When nothing remains as executable, the executing power of the civil court cannot be invoked for the police protection alone. The constitutional courts are not only the courts of arbiter resolving disputes but also courts protecting rights guaranteed to the citizen. The constitutional courts have a duty to maintain and uphold the rule of law. When there is a challenge to the rule of law by a citizen who is bound to obey the same, the Court can step in by invoking its power of mandamus. The Court has to consider whether any effective measures are available otherwise. If there are no other measures, this Court has to invoke its power of writ for the reasons of justice.
In the light of the fact that Patriarch faction is bent on flouting the rule of law and create an atmosphere of hostility and animosity among parishioners, this Court has to invoke its extraordinary power to order police protection. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed as prayed and the police is directed to accord protection as sought for by the petitioners forthwith. No costs.
Sd/-
ms A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE [W.P.(C).No.8528/2019] -:7:- APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8528/2019 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE KALPANA NO 34/PRAP/CLRY/2002 DATED 3.9.2002 ISSUED BY THE DIOCESAN METROPOLITAN, THRISSUR DIOCESE OF MALANKARA ORTHODOX CHURCH ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.4.2018 IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS 3986-3989 OF 2018 ON THE FILES OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.3.2018 IN IA NO 4440/2017 IN OS NO 9/2015 ON THE FILES OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.7.2018 IN FAO NOS 96-99, 100 AND 101 OF 2018 ON THE FILES OF THIS HON'BLE COURT EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 19.11.2018 IN SLP(C) NO 29254/2018 ON THE FILES OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF MANORAMA DAILY DATED 19.2.2018 CONTAINING THE SPEECH OF THE PATRIARCH FACTION ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE DECCAN CHRONICLE DAILY DATED 19.2.2018 CONTAINING THE SPEECH OF THE METROPOLITAN OF PATRIARCH FACTION.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS 5 TO 6 ALONG WITH [W.P.(C).No.8528/2019] -:8:- ENGLISH TRANSLATION EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF A RECEIPT ISSUED FOR THE COLLECTORATE ON 22 11 2018 ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM PUBLISHED IN THE MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 2.12.2018 ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 30.1.2019 EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 10TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P10 B TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION EXHIBIT P10 C TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 8.2.2016 EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO 25202 OF 2017 DATED 13.10.2017 GRANTED POLICE PROTECTION TO THE ORTHODOX FACTION TOP CONDUCT RELIGIOUS SERVICES. EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED2.2.2018 IN SLP NO 36353/2017 ON THE FILES OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.1.2019 IN MA NO 161/2018IN SLP (C) NO 29254/2018 EXHIBIT P14 A TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.1022 OF 2019 IN CONTEMPT PETITIN (CIVIL) NO.1022 OF 2019 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.
[W.P.(C).No.8528/2019] -:9:- EXHIBIT-ADDL.P15 TRUE COPY OF MINUTES OF THE MANAGING COMMITTEE MEETING OF THE MALANKARA ASSOCIATION HELD ON9TH AND 10TH OF AUGUST,2002.
EXHIBIT-ADDLP16 TRUE COPY OF KALPANA NO.134/2002 DTD.
12.08.2002.
EXHIBIT-ADDL P17 TRUE COPY OF THE PAGE NOS. 1 TO 43 OF THE ATTANDANCE REGISTER CONTAINING THE DETAILS OF REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PARTICIPATED CHURCHES.