Kerala High Court
Corrected As Appellants/Respondents ... vs Fr.Thomas Paul Ramban on 18 March, 2020
Bench: A.M.Shaffique, P Gopinath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1941
WA.No.320 OF 2020
*[AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER DATED 11.02.2020 IN RP NO.96 OF
2020 WITH CONNECTED RP.NOS.41 OF 2020 AND 115 OF 2020 FROM
THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.12.2019 IN WPC.NO.25089/2019]
*CORRECTED AS 'AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.12.2019 IN WPC
NO.25089/2019 AND THE ORDER DATED 11.02.2020 IN
R.P.NO.96/2020
**[APPELLANTS/REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS IN WPC:]
CORRECTED AS APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS IN WPC/REVIEW
PETITIONERS IN RP
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KAKKANAD
ERNAKULAM-682 030
2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
MUVATTUPUZHA-686 669
3 DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
MUVATTUPUZHA-686 669
4 INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
KOTHAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, KOTHAMANGALAM -686
691
BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SOHAN, STATE ATTORNEY
WA No.320/2020 & conn.cases
-:2:-
***[RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT NOS.5
TO 12 IN WPC]: CORRECTED AS RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND
RESPONDENT NOS.5 TO 12 IN WPC/RESPONDENTS IN RP.
1 FR.THOMAS PAUL RAMBAN
S/O. LATE PAULOSE, MARACHERIL HOUSE, KUTHUKUZHI
KARA, KOTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM
TALUK,PIN-686 691
2 FR.BIJU VARKEY,
S/O. VARKEY, KORATTIYIL HOUSE, MUDAVOOR KARA,
VELLOORKUNNAM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, PIN-
686 673
3 FR.MONCY N.ABRAHAM
S/O.ABRAHAM, NIRAVATHUKANDATHIL HOUSE,
NELLIMATTOM KARA, KUTTAMNGALAM VILLAGE,
KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, PIN-686 693
4 FR.GEEVARGHESE.M.T.,
S/O. THOMAS, MANNARAMBIL HOUSE, ASZHAKAOM KARA,
MUKKANNOOR VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, PIN-683 577
5 FR. BASIL K.PHILIP,
KOTTICKAL HOUSE, PADIKKAPPU KARA, MANNAMKANDAM
VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK, PIN-685 561
6 FR.BIBIN C.U.,
S/O. ULAHANNAN, CHERUKUNNEL HOUSE,
THEKKENMARADY KARA, MARADY VILLAGE,
MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK,PIN-686 673
7 SALIM CHERIAN
CHERIAN, MALIYIL HOUSE, ILAVANADU KARA,
KOTHAMANGALAM-686 691
8 JOHNSON KURAKOSE,
S/O. KURIAKOSE, THEKKILAKKATTU HOUSE,
KOZHIPILLY KARA, VARAPETTY, KOTHAMANGALAM-686
691
WA No.320/2020 & conn.cases
-:3:-
9 MANOLIN KUNJACHAN,
S/O. KUNJACHAN, THACHAMATTAM MANGALATH HOUSE,
ANGADI, KOTHAMANGALAM,PIN-686 691
*CAUSE TITLE IS CORRECTED AS PER ORDER DATED 26.02.2020 IN
I.A. 1/2020
R1 BY ADV. SRI.ROSHEN.D.ALEXANDER
R1 BY ADV. SMT.TINA ALEX THOMAS
R9 BY ADV. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH
R9 BY ADV. SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU
R9 BY ADV. SRI.P.U.VINOD KUMAR
R9 BY ADV. SRI.AVINASH P RAVEENDRAN
R9 BY ADV. SMT.ARYA RAGHUNATH
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-03-
2020, ALONG WITH WA.392/2020, WA.421/2020, WA.457/2020,
WA.500/2020, THE COURT ON 18-03-2020 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WA No.320/2020 & conn.cases
-:4:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1941
WA.No.392 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER IN RP 115/2020 IN WPC NO.25089/2019 DATED
11.2.2020 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/REVIEW PETITIONER/3RD PARTY:
CHARLEY MATHEW,
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O. M.P. MATHEW, PUTHEECKAL HOUSE, NELLIKUZHY
P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686691.
BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 12:
1 FR.THOMAS PAUL RAMBAN,
AGED 47, S/O. LATE POULOSE, MARACHERIL HOUSE,
KUTHUKUZHI KARA, KOTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE,
KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686691.
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682030.
3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686669.
4 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686691.
WA No.320/2020 & conn.cases
-:5:-
5 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
KOTHAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, KOTHAMANGALAM-
686691.
6 FR. BIJU VARKEY,AGED 43,
S/O. VARKEY, KORATTIYIL HOUSE, MUDAVOOR KARA,
VELOORKUNNAM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686673.
7 FR. MONCY N. ABRAHAM,
AGED 55, S/O. ABRAHAM, NIRAVATHUKANDATHIL
HOUSE, NELLIMATTOM KARA, KUTTAMANGALAM VILLAGE,
KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRIT-686693.
8 FR. GHEEVARGHESE M.T.,
AGED 55, S/O. THOMAS, MANNARAMBIL HOUSE,
AZHAKOM KARA, MUKKANNOOR VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683577.
9 FR. BASIL K. PHILIP,
AGED 40, S/O. PHILIP, KOTTICKAL HOUSE
PADIKKAPPU KARA, MANNAMKANDAM VILLAGE,
DEVIKULAM TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685561.
10 FR. BIBIN C.U.,
AGED 38, S/O. ULAHANNAN, CHERUKUNNEL HOUSE,
THEKENMARADY KARA, MARADY VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA
TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686673.
11 SALIM CHERIAN,
AGED 63, S/O. CHERIAN, MALIYIL HOUSE, ILAVANAD
KARA, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686691.
12 JOHNSON KURIAKOSE,
AGED 53, S/O. KURIAKOSE, THEKKILAKKATTU HOUSE,
KOZHIPILLY KARA, VARAPPETTI, KOTHAMANGALAM,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686691.
13 MANOLIN KUNJACHAN,
AGED 41, S/O. KUNJACHAN, THACHAMATTAM,
MANGALATH HOUSE, ANGADI, KOTHAMANGALAM,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686691.
WA No.320/2020 & conn.cases
-:6:-
R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
R1 BY ADV. SRI.ROSHEN.D.ALEXANDER
R1 BY ADV. SMT.TINA ALEX THOMAS
SRI.K.V.SOHAN, STATE ATTORNEY
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-03-
2020, ALONG WITH WA.320/2020, WA.421/2020, WA.457/2020,
WA.500/2020, THE COURT ON 18-03-2020 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WA No.320/2020 & conn.cases
-:7:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1941
WA.No.421 OF 2020
AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER DATED 11/2/2020 IN RP NO.96/2020
IN R.P.NO.41/2020 AND IN RP NO.115/2020 AND THE JUDGMENT
DATED 3/12/2019 IN IN WP(C) 25089/2019(I) OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.9 IN R.P./12TH RESPONDENT IN WP(C)
NO.25089/2019:
MANOLIN KUNJACHAN,
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O. KUNJACHAN, THACHAMATTAM MANGALATH HOUSE,
ANGADI, KOTHAMANGALAM,PIN-686 691
BY ADVS.
SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH
SRI.SABU THOZHUPPADAN
SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU
SRI.P.U.VINOD KUMAR
SRI.AVINASH P RAVEENDRAN
SMT.ARYA RAGHUNATH
SMT.VAISAKHI V.
SRI.SHELLY PAUL
SMT.SNEHA SUKUMARAN MULLAKKAL
SRI.AJWIN P LALSON
WA No.320/2020 & conn.cases
-:8:-
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS IN R.P/RESPONDENTS 1
TO 4, RESPONDENT NO.1 AND OTHER RESPONDENTS IN WPC
NO.25089/2019:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR.
KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682 030
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
MUVATTUPUZHA-686 669
3 DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
MUVATTUPUZHA-686 669
4 INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
KOTHAMANGALAM-686 691
5 FR.THOMAS PAUL RAMBAN
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O. LATE PAULOSE, MARACHERIL HOUSE, KUTHUKUZHI
KARA, KOTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE,
KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK,PIN-686 691
6 FR. BIJU VARKEY,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
S/O. VARKEY, KORATTIYIL HOUSE, MUDAVOOR KARA,
VELLOORKUNNAM VILLAGE,
MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, PIN-686 673
7 FR. MONCY N.ABRAHAM,
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O. ABRAHAM, NIRAVATHKANDATHIL HOUSE,
NELLIMATTOM KARA, KUTTAMANGALAM VILLAGE,
KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK,PIN-686 693
8 FR.GEEVARGHESE.M.T.,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
S/O.THOMAS, MANNARAMBIL HOUSE, AAZHAKOM KARA,
MUKKANOOR VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, PIN-683 577
WA No.320/2020 & conn.cases
-:9:-
9 FR.BASIL K.PHILIP
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
S/O. PHILIP,KOTTICKAL HOUSE, PADIKKAPPU KARA,
MANNAMKANDAM VILLAGE,
DEVIKULAM TALUK, PIN-685 561
10 FR.BIBIN.C.U.
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
S/O. ULAHANNAN, CHERUKUNNEL HOUSE,
THEKKENMARADY KARA, MARADY VILLAGE,
MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, PIN-686 673
11 SALIM CHERIAN
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
S/O. CHERIAN, MALIYIL HOUSE, ILAVANADU KARA,
KOTHAMANGALAM,PIN-686 691
12 JOHNSON KURIAKOSE
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
S/O. KURIAKOSE, THEKKILAKKATTU HUSE,
KOZHIPPILLY KARA, VARAPETTI, KOTHAMANGALAM,PIN-
686 691
R5 BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
R5 BY ADV. SRI.ROSHEN.D.ALEXANDER
R5 BY ADV. SMT.TINA ALEX THOMAS
SRI.K.V.SOHAN, STATE ATTORNEY
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-03-
2020, ALONG WITH WA.320/2020, WA.392/2020, WA.457/2020,
WA.500/2020, THE COURT ON 18-03-2020 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WA No.320/2020 & conn.cases
-:10:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1941
WA.No.457 OF 2020
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 25089/2019(I) OF HIGH COURT
OF KERALA DT 3.12.2019
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 10 AND 11:
1 SALIM CHERIAN,
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O. CHERIAN, MALIYIL HOUSE, IIAVANADU KARA,
KOTHAMANGALAM 686 691, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
2 JOHNSON KURIAKOSE,
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O. KURIAKOSE, THEKKILAKKATTU HOUSE,
KOZHIPPILLY KARA, VARAPETTY, KOTHAMANGALAM, 686
691, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)
SRI.K.I.SAGEER
SMT.NISHA GEORGE
RESPONDENTS/WRIT PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 9 AND 12:
1 FR.THOMAS PAUL RAMBAN
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O. LATE PAULOSE, MARACHERIL HOUSE, KUTHUKUZHI
KARA, KOTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM
TALUK, 686 691.
WA No.320/2020 & conn.cases
-:11:-
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM 682 030.
3 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
MUVATTUPUZHA 686 669.
4 DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
MUVATTUPUZHA 686 669.
5 INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
KOTHAMANGALAM POLICE STATION,
KOTHAMANGALAM 686 691.
6 FR. BIJU VARKEY,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
S/O. VARKEY, KORATTIYIL HOUSE, MUDAVOOR KARA,
VELLOORKUNNAM VILLAGE,
MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK 686 673.
7 FR. MONCY .N. ABRAHAM,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
S/O. ABRAHAM, NIRAVATHUKANDATHIL HOUSE,
NELLIMATTOM KARA, KUTTAMANGALAM VILLAGE,
KOTHAMANGALAM, TALUK 686 693.
8 FR. GEEVARGHESE M.T.,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
S/O. THOMAS, MANNARAMBIL HOUSE, AAZHAKOM KARA,
MUKKANNOOR VILLAGE, ALUVA TLUK 683 577.
9 FR. BASIL.K. PHILIP,
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O. PHILIP, KOTTICKAL HOUSE, PADIKKAPPU KARA,
MANNAMKANDAM VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK, 685 561.
10 FR. BIBIN.C.U.,
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O. ULAHANNAN, CHERUKUNNEL HOUSE,
THEKKENMARADY KARA, MARADY VILLAGE,
MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, 686 673.
WA No.320/2020 & conn.cases
-:12:-
11 MANOLIN KUNJACHAN,
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O. KUNJACHN, THACHAMATTAM MANGALATH HOUSE,
ANGADI, KOTHAMANGALAM 686 691.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
R1 BY ADV. SRI.ROSHEN.D.ALEXANDER
R1 BY ADV. SMT.TINA ALEX THOMAS
SRI.K.V.SOHAN, STATE ATTORNEY
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-03-
2020, ALONG WITH WA.320/2020, WA.392/2020, WA.421/2020,
WA.500/2020, THE COURT ON 18-03-2020 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WA No.320/2020 & conn.cases
-:13:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1941
WA.No.500 OF 2020
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 3.12.2019 IN WPC NO.25089/19 AND
ORDER DATED 11.2.2020 IN RP 41/2020 IN WPC 25089/2019 OF
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 5 & 9 IN THE WRIT PETITION REVIEW
PETITIONERS IN REVIEW PETITION:
1 FR.BIJU VARKEY,
AGED 45 YEARS
SON OF VARKEY, KORATTIYIL HOUSE, MUDAVOOR KARA,
VELLOORKKUNNAM VILLAGE,
MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN - 686 673.
2 FR.BIBIN C.U.,
AGED 40 YEARS
SON OF ULAHANNAN, CHERUKUNNEL HOUSE, THEKKEN
MARADY KAA, MARADY VILLAGE,
MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, PIN -686 673.
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.VINOD BHAT
KUM.ANAGHA LAKSHMY RAMAN
WA No.320/2020 & conn.cases
-:14:-
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4, 6 TO 8 AND 10
TO 12/ RESPONDETNS IN THE REVIEW PETITION:
1 FR.THOMAS PAUL RAMBAN,
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O.LATE PAULOSE, MARACHERIL HOUSE, KUTHUKUZHI
KARA, KOTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAK
TALUK, PIN - 686 691.
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM - 682 030.
3 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
MUVATTUPUZHA - 686 669.
4 DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
MUVATTUPUZHA - 686 669.
5 INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
KOTHAMANGALAM POLICE STATION,
KOTHAMANGALAM - 686 691.
6 FR.MONCY N.ABRAHAM,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, S/O.ABRAHAM,
NIRAVATHUKANDATHIL HOUSE, NELLIMATTOM KARA,
KOTHAMANGALAM, KOTHAMANGALAM, PIN - 686 693.
7 FR.GEEVARGHESE M.T.,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS, MANNARAMBIL
HOUSE, AAZHAKOM KARA, MUKKANNOOR VILLAGE, ALUVA
TALUK, MUKKANNOOR - 683 577.
8 FR.BASIL K.PHILIP,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, S/O.PHILIP, KOTTICKAL
HOUSE, PADIKKAPPU KARA, MANNAMKANDAM VILLAGE,
DEVIKULAM TALUK, PIN - 685 561.
9 SALIM CHERIAN,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O.CHERIAN, MALIYIL
HOUSE, ILLAVANADU KARA,
KOTHAMANGALAM - 686 691.
WA No.320/2020 & conn.cases
-:15:-
10 JOHNSON KURIAKOSE,
AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.KURIAKOSE, THEKKILAKKATTU
HOUSE, KOZHIPILLY KARA, VARAPETTY,
KOTHAMANGALAM - 686 691.
11 MANOLIN KUNJACHAN,
AGED 40 YEARS,S/O.KUNJACHAN, THACHAMATTAM,
MANAGALATH HOUSE, ANGADI,
KOTHAMANGALAM - 686 691.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
R1 BY ADV. SRI.ROSHEN.D.ALEXANDER
R1 BY ADV. SMT.TINA ALEX THOMAS
SRI.K.V.SOHAN, STATE ATTORNEY
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-03-
2020, ALONG WITH WA.320/2020, WA.392/2020, WA.421/2020,
WA.457/2020, THE COURT ON 18-03-2020 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WA No.320/2020 & conn.cases
-:16:-
JUDGMENT
WA Nos.320, 392, 421, 457 & 500/2020 Dated this the 18th day of March, 2020 Shaffique, J.
These appeals had been filed challenging judgment dated 3/12/2019 in WP(C) No. 25089/2019 whereby the learned Single Judge has issued the following directions:-
"13. Having regard to the facts of this case as disclosed from the pleadings of the parties, and having regard to the provisions contained in Chapters VIII and X of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Sections 63 and 67 of the Kerala Police Act, 2011, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:
(i) The first respondent shall ensure public order, peace and tranquility in the locality of the Church forthwith, if necessary, by deploying the provisions of Chapter X of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(ii) The first respondent shall, thereafter, take over the Church, its precincts and all its movables after removing all persons squatting inside the Church premises and its compound and shall make arrangements as he considers proper for looking after the Church, its precincts and movables.
(iii) When the first respondent is satisfied thereafter WA No.320/2020 & conn.cases -:17:- that the situation prevailing in the area is conducive so as to enable the petitioner, who is the Vicar of the Church, to conduct religious ceremonies in the Church, the Church, its precincts and movables shall be handed over to the petitioner for management.
(iv) In the meanwhile, if the body of any parishioner is to be buried, there shall be no impediment for the same and the religious services required for the same shall be rendered by the petitioner.
(v) Once the Church and its precincts are handed over to the petitioner, he shall be extended necessary police aid for conducting religious ceremonies in the Church.
(vi) If any person creates any law and order situation or obstructs the religious services in the Church, the Police shall forthwith arrest and remove him.
(vii) Necessary contingent of Police shall remain in the premises of the Church until peace and harmony is attained and the petitioner would be in a position to manage the affairs of the Church".
Though three review petitions were filed by the respondents including the official respondents, by order dated 11/2/2020, the learned Single Judge disposed of the review petitions by issuing a clarification in terms of paragraph 13, which reads as under;
"13. The Kerala Christian Cemeteries (Right to Burial of corpse) Ordinance, 2020 provides that the relatives of the deceased member of a parish may forego funeral services in WA No.320/2020 & conn.cases -:18:- church or its cemetery or opt for funeral services at any other premises by a priest of their choice. In the light of the said provision, the judgment sought to be reviewed needs to be clarified to the effect that relatives of the deceased members of parish may forgo funeral services in the church or its cemetery or opt for funeral services at any other premises by a priest of their choice".
2. WA No.320/2020 has been filed by the District Collector and official respondents inter alia contending that the exercise of jurisdiction by the learned Single Judge was totally improper in so far as the District Administration ought to have been given sufficient time to ensure that peace and harmony remains among the members of the parish and operational freedom ought to have been given to the police rather than issuing the directions mentioned in the impugned judgment. It is also contended that the suit filed by the petitioner before the civil Court in which the interim direction had been issued was not maintainable in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in K.S.Varghese v. St.Peter's and St.Pauls Syrian Orthodox Church and Others [(2017) 15 SCC 333]. It is also the case of the appellants that a proper opportunity was not given to the appellants to file counter affidavit in the matter. The learned WA No.320/2020 & conn.cases -:19:- State Attorney Sri.K.V. Sohan argued that it is for the respective factions to settle their differences in an amicable manner and without taking any steps in that regard, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking police protection. It is pointed out that large number of parishioners are obstructing the attempt on the part of the petitioner to take charge of the parish church and therefore severe law and order problem may arise if the District Administration or Police take action in the matter and it is all the more necessary that the parties should sit together and settle the issue rather than trying to enforce the rights of one faction over the other. It is further argued that there is no mandate in the judgment in K.S.Varghese's case (supra) that the petitioner should be given custody of the church and therefore the learned Single Judge has gone beyond the dictum laid down in the said judgment. It is also argued that the petitioner had approached this Court for enforcing an order passed by the civil court. When the judgment in K.S.Varghese's case (supra) was delivered, any order passed by the civil court has to be ignored. The learned State Attorney also placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in State of M.P. v. Mangilal Sharma [(1998) 2 SCC 510]. WA No.320/2020 & conn.cases -:20:- That was a case in which an employee filed a suit for a declaration that he continued to be in service of the establishment. The suit was decreed on 1/10/1982. Though appeals were filed by the employer, the same were dismissed finally on 26/4/1986. The decree holder filed an execution application inter alia stating that he should be awarded all consequential benefits, the salary, DA, promotion etc,. The question considered was whether the Execution Petition was maintainable. It was held that the plaintiff while seeking for a declaration did not ask for any other reliefs like reinstatement, arrears of salary and other consequential benefits and therefore the Execution Petition claiming arrears of salary etc., were not maintainable. It was held that a declaratory decree cannot be executed when no relief was granted to him relating to arrears of salary and other consequential benefits. The argument of the learned State Attorney is that K.S.Varghese's case (supra) is only a declaratory decree and therefore the same cannot by itself be executed. If the police protection is claimed based on an order passed by the civil Court, the remedy is only to file execution application and if there is violation of any order, proceedings WA No.320/2020 & conn.cases -:21:- could be taken under O.39 Rule 2A and therefore the writ itself is not maintainable.
3. WA No.457/2020 has been filed by respondents 10 and 11 in WP(C) No. 25089/2019. The argument raised by Sri.George Poonthottam, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants is based on an earlier judgment of this Court and the Supreme Court. That was a case in which a batch of cases were filed before the High Court calling upon the State to provide police protection in order to enable the Catholicos cum Malankara Metropolitan of Malankara church to exercise his duties, rights and privileges with respect to the parish churches without any threat or obstruction from certain private respondents. A Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 28/1/2003 in OP No.22946/2002 and connected cases held that the right of parish churches were not determined by the judgment of Apex Court in Most.Rev.P.M.A. Metropolitan v. Moran Mar Marthoma (AIR 1995 SC 2001) and therefore the petitioner has no right over the churches, which were not parties in the case. Consequently it was directed that police help cannot be ordered for the mere asking and that in matters involving religious institutions, it would be WA No.320/2020 & conn.cases -:22:- normally inappropriate to order grant of police protection unless a case is made out. The matter was taken in appeal before the Apex Court and decided in Civil Appeal No.5460-5466/2004. The Apex Court having set aside the judgment of the High Court held that the High Court had committed manifest error in going into the disputed questions of title and also the disputed questions with regard to the rights of a particular group to manage the churches in exercise of its writ jurisdiction especially when those cases are pending before the competent civil courts. It was therefore held that any observation made by the Court will not influence the courts while arriving at the independent decisions and all contentions of the parties were left open. It was also argued that the original of 1934 Constitution has not been seen by anyone to claim the benefit of 1934 Constitution. On that basis it is contended that the judgment obtained by the petitioner was by practicing fraud on Court and is a nullity. Therefore, according to the petitioner, K.S.Varghese's case (supra) as well as the judgment in Most.Rev.P.M.A. Metropolitan (supra) is a nullity in the eye of law as the same has been obtained by practicing fraud on Court.
WA No.320/2020 & conn.cases -:23:-
4. WA No. 421/2020 has been filed by the 9 th respondent. The learned counsel Sri.Babu Karukapadath appearing on behalf of the 9th respondent argued that the law laid down in K.S.Varghese's case (supra) approves the 1934 Constitution and going by the provisions of the 1934 Constitution, it is an elected body of the parishioners that has to manage the church and its properties. The Vicar appointed by the Metropolitan of the Angamaly Diocese by himself cannot take custody of the church and its properties. It is further argued that even the Vicar is not a person who is qualified to be ordained as a Vicar.
5. WA No. 500/2020 has been filed by respondents 5 and
9. It is argued by the learned counsel Sri.Vinod Bhat appearing on behalf of respondents 5 and 9 that the trial Court has not granted the entire reliefs as sought for in the interlocutory application. Though the petitioner had sought for a relief that no other Vicar shall be permitted to conduct services in the church, when such a relief is not granted, it is possible for any other Vicar to conduct services in the church. It is further argued that with reference to the church in question, a suit was filed as OS No.1/1979 wherein the only relief sought for was that the church WA No.320/2020 & conn.cases -:24:- should be governed by the 1934 Constitution. The said suit had been decreed and finally resulted in the judgment in Most.Rev.P.M.A. Metropolitan (supra). In so far as no other relief had been sought for, the present attempt is only to take over the custody of the church and its properties by exercising a dubious method, with the assistance of the Police and District Administration.
6. A third party had approached this Court by filing WA No. 392/2020. He is a person who got himself impleaded as an additional defendant in the suit filed by the petitioner. According to him, the suit itself is not maintainable and even if there was an interim order passed by the Court, this Court should not have exercised the discretion to grant police protection as in the event the suit is dismissed, substantial injustice would be caused to various stakeholders.
7. The facts involved in the case would disclose that the petitioner had approached this Court inter alia seeking the following reliefs:
"(i). To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing Respondents 1 and 2 to invoke WA No.320/2020 & conn.cases -:25:- powers vested on them under Chapters VIII and X of the Code of Criminal Procedure in order to maintain public order and tranquility in Marthoman Cheriya Pally, Kothamangalam.
ii. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing Respondents 1 to 4 to act in aid of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as they are bound to do as per Article 144 of the Constitution of India thereby giving effect to the Judgment of the Hon'ble supreme Court in K.S.Varghese case [2017 (3) KLT 261] as clarified by Exhibit P8 order in Marthoman Cheriya Pally, Kothamangalam.
Iii. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing Respondents 3 and 4 to invoke the provisions of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 especially Sections 63 and 67 in order to ensure prevention of any untoward incident in Marthoman Cheriya Pally, Kothamangalam."
8. The petitioner claims to be the Vicar of Marthoman Cheriyapalli at Kothamangalam. He has been appointed as Vicar from 16/8/2017 as per Kalpana issued by the Metropolitan of Angamaly Diocese. Petitioner filed OS No.162/2018 before the Munsiff Court, Muvattupuzha in a representative capacity after seeking sanction under O.1 Rule 8 of CPC, and sought for a permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain those persons who are preventing the petitioner from representing as Vicar of WA No.320/2020 & conn.cases -:26:- Marthoman Cheriyapalli and restrain the priests of Patriarch faction from entering the said Church. He filed IA No.830/2018 for a temporary injunction which was allowed as per order dated 21/7/2018. By virtue of the said order, the learned Munsiff allowed the petition as under:-
"1) Defendants 2 to 9/Respondents their men and agents are restrained by an order of temporary prohibitory injunction from causing any obstruction to the plaintiff in discharging the duties of the parish priest of the first defendant church including conducting of holy mass and other religious functions of the first defendant in its Kurishadi, Cemetery etc and defendants 2 to 6/respondents 1 to 5 from acting as Vicars/Assistant Vicars of the first defendant church and from doing any acts as the Vicars/Assistant Vicars of first defendant church till the disposal of the suit.
2) Petitioner is also entitled to realise costs of the petition from the respondents".
9. Against the said order, the contesting respondents filed CMA No.19/2018 before the Sub Court, Muvattupuzha and the said appeal was dismissed on 12/9/2018. The matter was again challenged before this court as OP(C) No.2333/2018. Though an order of status quo was issued on 18/9/2018 after hearing the parties, order of status quo was not extended. Since WA No.320/2020 & conn.cases -:27:- the petitioner was not permitted to function as Vicar, petitioner filed IA No.2738/2018 seeking a direction to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Muvattupuzha to provide adequate police protection to implement the order passed in IA No.830/2018. The said interlocutory application was allowed and the operative portion reads as under:
"1. The Dy.Superintendent of Police, Muvattupuzha is directed to provide ample and adequate police assistance to the petitioner in implementing the order of injunction passed in IA 830/2018 in OS No.162/2018.
2. Issue intimation to the Dy. Superintendent of Police, Muvattupuzha for necessary action with copy of the order in IA 830/18 and this order."
Challenging the said order, one of the contesting respondent filed OP (C) No. 3147/2018. By judgment dated 18/12/2018, this Court after evaluating the respective contentions dismissed the OP. While so, this Court held as under:-
"A lawful order passed by a competent court, whether it be by a court of lowest jurisdiction or the highest court in the land, the police is bound to enforce it in accordance with law. Police has no right or authority to sit in appeal on the orders passed by the courts and examine its correctness. It can be decided only by higher courts in the hierarchy. State administration also has a non-negotiable constitutional responsibility to maintain majesty of the WA No.320/2020 & conn.cases -:28:- rule of law. The police department, being a limb of the State administration, is also duty bound to enforce the rule of law. The police officers concerned by citing some irrelevant provisions from the Kerala Police Act, 2011 cannot extricate themselves from the duty and responsibility of enforcing the court's order. Legal rights of citizens cannot be decided merely by looking into the Kerala Police Act, 2011. Apart from the Kerala Police Act, there are other central statutes like Indian Penal Code, Code of Criminal Procedure, etc. whereunder the police is obliged to act under such situations".
10. In the meantime, petitioner also filed IA No.1284/2019 for impleading the Union of India, Director General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force etc to give assistance to the petitioner for enforcing the order of the Munsiff Court in IA No.830/2018.
11. When all efforts of the petitioner to enforce the order of injunction was prevented by a group of people and as police was not taking any action in the matter, this writ petition was filed. It is also brought to our notice that by order dated 16/10/2019, the learned Munsiff has issued directions to the Director General of Police, State of Kerala to implement the order of injunction in IA No.830/2018.
12. Apparently this is a case in which the petitioner had WA No.320/2020 & conn.cases -:29:- called upon the State and its officers including the police to implement the directions issued by a civil Court. Though the order of injunction was passed as early as on 21/7/2018 and the police was directed to implement the same as per order dated 23/11/2018, and this Court had confirmed the same by order dated 18/12/2018, it is apparent that the petitioner was not in a position to gain the fruits of the lis.
13. From the contentions urged on either side, it is rather clear that the issue involved in the present case is also the factional dispute between the Patriarch faction and the Orthodox faction. The Apex Court in K.S.Varghese (supra) had already settled the entire issues in its judgment dated 3/7/2017. The Apex Court after having referred to all the earlier judgments on the point had finally settled the law which has to be read as a final outcome of the lis between both the factions and it is not open for any of the members of patriarch faction to make any claim with respect to any of the churches managed and administered by the Malankara church. The operative portion of the said judgment para 228 reads as under:-
"228. Resultantly, based on the aforesaid findings in the WA No.320/2020 & conn.cases -:30:- judgment, our main conclusions, inter alia, are as follows:
228.1. Malankara Church is episcopal in character to the extent it is so declared in the 1934 Constitution. The 1934 Constitution fully governs the affairs of the parish churches and shall prevail.
228.2. The decree in the 1995 judgment [Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan v. Moran Mar Marthoma, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 286] is completely in tune with the judgment. There is no conflict between the judgment and the decree. 228.3. The 1995 judgment [Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan v. Moran Mar Marthoma, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 286] arising out of the representative suit is binding and operates as res judicata with respect to the matters it has decided, in the wake of the provisions of Order 1 Rule 8 and Explanation 6 to Section 11 CPC. The same binds not only the parties named in the suit but all those who have interest in the Malankara Church. Findings in earlier representative suit i.e. Samudayam suit are also binding on parish churches/parishioners to the extent issues have been decided.
228.4. As the 1934 Constitution is valid and binding upon the parish churches, it is not open to any individual Church, to decide to have their new Constitution like that of 2002 in the so-called exercise of right under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. It is also not permissible to create a parallel system of management in the Churches under the guise of spiritual supremacy of the Patriarch.
228.5. The Primate of Orthodox Syrian Church of the East is Catholicos. He enjoys spiritual powers as well, as the Malankara Metropolitan. Malankara Metropolitan has the WA No.320/2020 & conn.cases -:31:- prime jurisdiction regarding temporal, ecclesiastical and spiritual administration of Malankara Church subject to the riders provided in the 1934 Constitution. 228.6. Full effect has to be given to the finding that the spiritual power of the Patriarch has reached to a vanishing point. Consequently, he cannot interfere in the governance of parish churches by appointing Vicar, priests, Deacons, Prelates (High Priests), etc. and thereby cannot create a parallel system of administration. The appointment has to be made as per the power conferred under the 1934 Constitution on the Diocese, Metropolitan, etc. concerned. 228.7. Though it is open to the individual member to leave a Church in exercise of the right not to be a member of any association and as per Article 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Parish Assembly of the Church by majority or otherwise cannot decide to move Church out of the Malankara Church. Once a trust, is always a trust.
228.8. When the Church has been created and is for the benefit of the beneficiaries, it is not open for the beneficiaries, even by a majority, to usurp its property or management. The Malankara Church is in the form of a trust in which, its properties have vested. As per the 1934 Constitution, the parishioners though may individually leave the Church, they are not permitted to take the movable or immovable properties out of the ambit of the 1934 Constitution without the approval of the Church hierarchy.
228.9. The spiritual power of Patriarch has been set up by the appellants clearly in order to violate the mandate of the 1995 judgment [Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan v. Moran WA No.320/2020 & conn.cases -:32:- Mar Marthoma, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 286] of this Court which is binding on the Patriarch, Catholicos and all concerned. 228.10. As per the historical background and the practices which have been noted, the Patriarch is not to exercise the power to appoint Vicar, priests, Deacons, Prelates, etc. Such powers are reserved to other authorities in the Church hierarchy. The Patriarch, thus, cannot be permitted to exercise the power in violation of the 1934 Constitution to create a parallel system of administration of Churches as done in 2002 and onwards. 228.11. This Court has held [Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan v. Moran Mar Marthoma, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 286] in 1995 that the unilateral exercise of such power by the Patriarch was illegal. The said decision has also been violated. It was only in the alternative this Court held in the 1995 judgment [Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan v. Moran Mar Marthoma, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 286] that even if he has such power, he could not have exercised the same unilaterally which we have explained in this judgment. 228.12. It is open to the parishioners to believe in the spiritual supremacy of the Patriarch or apostolic succession but it cannot be used to appoint Vicars, priests, Deacons, Prelates, etc. in contravention of the 1934 Constitution.
228.13. Malankara Church is episcopal to the extent as provided in the 1934 Constitution, and the right is possessed by the Diocese to settle all internal matters and elect their own Bishops in terms of the said Constitution. 228.14. Appointment of Vicar is a secular matter. There is no violation of any of the rights encompassed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India, if the WA No.320/2020 & conn.cases -:33:- appointment of Vicar, priests, Deacons, Prelates (High priests), etc. is made as per the 1934 Constitution. The Patriarch has no power to interfere in such matters under the guise of spiritual supremacy unless the 1934 Constitution is amended in accordance with law. The same is binding on all concerned.
228.15. Udampadies do not provide for appointment of Vicar, priests, Deacons, Prelates, etc. Even otherwise once the 1934 Constitution has been adopted, the appointment of Vicar, priests, Deacons, Prelates (High priests), etc. is to be as per the 1934 Constitution. It is not within the domain of the spiritual right of the Patriarch to appoint Vicar, priests, etc. The spiritual power also vests in the other functionaries of the Malankara Church.
228.16. The functioning of the Church is based upon the division of responsibilities at various levels and cannot be usurped by a single individual howsoever high he may be.
The division of powers under the 1934 Constitution is for the purpose of effective management of the Church and does not militate against the basic character of the Church being episcopal in nature as mandated thereby. The 1934 Constitution cannot be construed to be opposed to the concept of spiritual supremacy of the Patriarch of Antioch. It cannot as well, be said to be an instrument of injustice or vehicle of oppression on the parishioners who believe in the spiritual supremacy of the Patriarch.
228.17. The Church and the cemetery cannot be confiscated by anybody. It has to remain with the parishioners as per the customary rights and nobody can be deprived of the right to enjoy the same as a Parishioner in the Church or to be buried honourably in the cemetery, WA No.320/2020 & conn.cases -:34:- in case he continues to have faith in the Malankara Church. The property of the Malankara Church in which is also vested the property of the parish churches, would remain in trust as it has for time immemorial for the sake of the beneficiaries and no one can claim to be owners thereof even by majority and usurp the Church and the properties.
228.18. The faith of Church is unnecessarily sought to be divided vis-à-vis the office of Catholicos and the Patriarch as the common faith of the Church is in Jesus Christ. In fact an effort is being made to take over the management and other powers by raising such disputes as to supremacy of Patriarch or Catholicos to gain control of temporal matters under the garb of spirituality. There is no good or genuine cause for disputes which have been raised.
228.19. The authority of Patriarch had never extended to the government of temporalities of the Churches. By questioning the action of the Patriarch and his undue interference in the administration of Churches in violation of the 1995 judgment [Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan v. Moran Mar Marthoma, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 286] , it cannot be said that the Catholicos faction is guilty of repudiating the spiritual supremacy of the Patriarch. The Patriarch faction is to be blamed for the situation which has been created post 1995 judgment [Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan v. Moran Mar Marthoma, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 286] . The property of the Church is to be managed as per the 1934 Constitution. The judgment of 1995 [Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan v. Moran Mar Marthoma, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 286] has not been respected by the Patriarch faction which was binding on all concerned. Filing of writ petitions WA No.320/2020 & conn.cases -:35:- in the High Court by the Catholicos faction was to deter the Patriarch/his representatives to appoint the Vicar, etc. in violation of the 1995 judgment [Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan v. Moran Mar Marthoma, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 286] of this Court.
228.20. The 1934 Constitution is enforceable at present and the plea of its frustration or breach is not available to the Patriarch faction. Once there is Malankara Church, it has to remain as such including the property. No group or denomination by majority or otherwise can take away the management or the property as that would virtually tantamount to illegal interference in the management and illegal usurpation of its properties. It is not open to the beneficiaries even by majority to change the nature of the Church, its property and management. The only method to change management is to amend the Constitution of 1934 in accordance with law. It is not open to the parish churches to even frame bye-laws in violation of the provisions of the 1934 Constitution.
228.21. The Udampadies of 1890 and 1913 are with respect to administration of churches and are not documents of the creation of the trust and are not of utility at present and even otherwise cannot hold the field containing provisions inconsistent with the 1934 Constitution, as per Section 132 thereof. The Udampady also cannot hold the field in view of the authoritative pronouncements made by this Court in the earlier judgments as to the binding nature of the 1934 Constitution.
228.22. The 1934 Constitution does not create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or future WA No.320/2020 & conn.cases -:36:- any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent in the Malankara Church properties and only provides a system of administration and as such is not required to be registered. In any case, the Udampadies for the reasons already cited, cannot supersede the 1934 Constitution only because these are claimed to be registered. 228.23. In otherwise episcopal Church, whatever autonomy is provided in the Constitution for the Churches is for management and necessary expenditure as provided in Section 22, etc. 228.24. The formation of the 2002 Constitution is the result of illegal and void exercise. It cannot be recognised and the parallel system created thereunder for administration of parish churches of Malankara Church cannot hold the field. It has to be administered under the 1934 Constitution.
228.25. It was not necessary, after amendment of the plaint in Mannathoor Church matter, to adopt the procedure once again of representative suit under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC. It remained a representative suit and proper procedure has been followed. It was not necessary to obtain fresh leave.
228.26. The 1934 Constitution is appropriate and adequate for management of the parish churches, as such there is no necessity of framing a scheme under Section 92 CPC.
228.27. The plea that in face of the prevailing dissension between the two factions and the remote possibility of reconciliation, the religious services may be permitted to be conducted by two Vicars of each faith cannot be accepted as that would amount to patronising parallel WA No.320/2020 & conn.cases -:37:- systems of administration.
228.28. Both the factions, for the sake of the sacred religion they profess and to pre-empt further bickering and unpleasantness precipitating avoidable institutional degeneration, ought to resolve their differences if any, on a common platform if necessary by amending the Constitution further in accordance with law, but by no means, any attempt to create parallel systems of administration of the same Churches resulting in law and order situations leading to even closure of the Churches can be accepted".
14. One of the arguments raised by Sri.George Poonthottam learned senior counsel is that judgment in K.S.Varghese's case (supra) is the outcome of a fraud as none has seen the 1934 Constitution and only printed copies have been produced before Court. Apparently no such contention had been taken before the Apex Court in K.S.Varghese's case or in any other judgment that has approved the 1934 Constitution. Therefore such a contention cannot be raised at this stage.
15. Yet another argument raised was that when in an earlier occasion police protection was denied for the aforesaid church, there is no reason to ask for further police protection. The cause of action for filing the present writ petition is on account of non compliance of directions issued by the learned Munsiff in IA WA No.320/2020 & conn.cases -:38:- No.830/2018 in OS No.162/2018. When a direction to render police protection has not been complied with, it gives rise to a fresh cause of action for any person to approach the writ Court and therefore it cannot be stated that the denial of police protection earlier is a bar for approaching this Court on a fresh cause of action.
16. The learned State Attorney specifically placed reliance on the judgment in Mangilal Sharma's case (supra). The factual aspects in Mangilal Sharma (supra) stands on a different footing. This is an instance where dehors a declaration by the Apex Court in K.S.Varghese (supra) that, a major group cannot usurp the powers to manage the church, and that the management and administration of Malankara church has to be done in accordance with the 1934 constitution, the party respondents and a group of persons are preventing the Vicar appointed by the Diocesan Metropolitan to perform services inside the church. Such an attitude in contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in K.S.Varghese (supra) and the learned Munsiff while granting the interim injunction placed specific reference to the judgment in K.S.Varghese (supra). The WA No.320/2020 & conn.cases -:39:- said interim order reached a finality as well. Therefore, in order to maintain law and order and to ensure that rule of law is adhered to by all concerned including the majority group, who have lost their battle before Civil court, it is necessary for this Court to issue appropriate directions. The orders of the Court are to be complied with in letter and spirit and the loosing party cannot take law into their own hands by raising unnecessary pleas. The Government and its machinery have to be utilized for the purpose of maintaining law and order as well as to ensure that rule of law prevails above all opinions expressed by a dissident faction. May be it is a larger group who have been defeated in their civil right pursuits, but still, when a law is laid down and it has been in no specific terms declared that the management of the Malankara Church has to be done in accordance with the 1934 constitution, no one else can prevent the administration of the church by using force. If any such force is used to prevent enforcement of an order passed by a civil Court, the District Administration as well as the police have the duty to ensure that Court order is complied with. This is not a case as simple as any other case, as projected by the State Attorney in order to apply the principle laid down in WA No.320/2020 & conn.cases -:40:- Mangilal Sharma's case (supra). This is a case in which the police and District Administration have been called upon to enforce an interim order passed by a civil Court which is based on the law laid down by the Apex Court in K.S.Varghese (supra). We do not want to indulge in considering the maintainability of the suit, in so far as the same is pending. It is open for the parties to approach the civil Court if they have a case that it is not maintainable. We leave that question open. But as matters stand now, when this Court in its discretion under Article 226 has issued directions to the District collector as well as to the police in order to enforce the order in a methodical manner, the directions cannot be found fault with. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, no one can now aspire to contend that 1934 Constitution does not apply to Malankara church.
17. As already directed by the Apex Court, if any amendments are to be made to the 1934 constitution, it is for the parties to take a decision after mutual consultation. None can insist that any form of compromise has to be worked out and unless such a method is adopted, the police protection cannot be WA No.320/2020 & conn.cases -:41:- granted. In the case on hand, what is directed to be implemented is a prohibitory order. The Vicar appointed by the Diocesan Metropolitan requires to enter the church and conduct services which is prevented by a group of persons including the party respondents and therefore when the civil Court itself has directed to provide adequate police protection to ensure that the Vicar conducts services in the church and when it is found that there is failure to do so, this Court has to exercise its jurisdiction to issue appropriate directions. Though it was contended by learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the direction issued are beyond the scope of the interim order, and the judgment in K.S.Varghese (supra), we do not think so. While exercising the jurisdiction, this Court can as well direct the mode in which the District Administration as well as the police should act. The whole issue has arisen on account of the obstruction caused by a group of people preventing the Vicar from entering the church. In order to enable the Vicar to enter the church and to conduct service, necessarily such directions are to be issued.
18. The contention that the Vicar (petitioner) has not been properly ordained and was not qualified to be the Vicar, has not WA No.320/2020 & conn.cases -:42:- been taken earlier. There is no dispute about the fact that he has been appointed by the Metropolitan of the Diocese. When a competent authority has appointed him as Vicar, there is no reason for us to doubt the qualification of the Vicar.
Hence, we do not think that any modification is required to be made with reference to the orders already passed by the learned Single Judge. Since no grounds are made out for interference, the appeals are dismissed.
Sd/-
A.M.SHAFFIQUE JUDGE Sd/-
GOPINATH P.
Rp JUDGE
WA No.320/2020 & conn.cases
-:43:-
APPENDIX OF WA 421/2020
APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
MALANKARA ORTHODOX SYRIAN CHURCH.
WA No.320/2020 & conn.cases
-:44:-
APPENDIX OF WA 457/2020
APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
LEARNED MUNSIFF IN I.A. NO. 1424/2019
IN OS. NO. 162/2018 DATED 24.06.2019.
ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BEFORE
THE MUNSIFFS COURT BY THE WRIT
PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF DATED 09.07.2019.
ANNEXURE 3 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY SRI. BIJU OOMMEN DATED 13.02.2019.
ANNEXURE 4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE APEX COURT IN MISC. APPLICATION NO.
2554-2555 OF 2019 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.
7115-7116 OF 2019 DATED 14.02.2020.
True Copy PS to Judge Rp