Madras High Court
Rt. Rev. Dr. H.A.Martin vs Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church on 22 April, 2015
Author: M.Sathyanarayanan
Bench: M.Sathyanarayanan, T.Raja
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 22.08.2016
DELIVERED ON : 07.12.2016
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
L.P.A.No.3 of 2015
and
M.P.No.1 of 2015 & C.M.P.Nos.12086, 10448, 10449, 11666 and 11700 of 2016
AND
L.P.A.No.5 of 2015
and
M.P.Nos.1, 3 and 4 of 2015 and C.M.P.Nos.3603, 3604 and 13502 of 2016
AND
Cont.P.No.1531 of 2015
and
Sub.A.Nos.527 and 792 of 2015
L.P.A.No.3 of 2015:
Rt. Rev. Dr. H.A.Martin,
Bishop,
Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church,
Tranquebar House,
Trichirappalli - 620 001. ... Appellant/
1st Respondent/1st Respondent
Vs.
1.Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church,
represented by its
Secretary,
E.D.Charles,
Tranquebar House,
Trichirappalli 620 001.
2.Dr.E.D.Charles,
Secretary,
Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church (TELC),
Tranquebar House,
Trichirappalli - 620 001. ... Respondents 1 and 2/
Applicants/Petitioners
3.D.Ravindran
4.Rev.M.S.Arivannal
5.Rev.D.Jesupatham
6.Rev.J.Jesupillai
7.Rev.D.Daniel Jayaraj
8.Prof.P.M.Bhaskaran
9.G.Prabhakaran
10.Rev.R.Valarmathy
11.R.Vincent Rover
12.S.Martin Devaraj
13.A.Mehar Antony
14.E.Lawrence
15.G.Muthukrishnan
16.G.Marthandam
17.Kanagaraj,
Administrator,
Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church,
Tranquebar House,
Trichirappalli 620 001. ... Respondents 3 to 17/
Respondents 2 to 16/Respondents 2 to 16
PRAYER: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order passed by this Court in Sub.A.No.420 of 2014 in Contempt Petition No.2715 of 2013, dated 22.04.2015.
For Appellant : Mr.Vijay Narayan,
Senior Counsel for
Mr.R.Jayaprakash
For Respondents : Mr.G.Masilamani,
Senior Counsel for
Mr.S.Manisundara Gopal for R.1 & R.2
Mr.S.Prabakaran,
Senior Counsel for
M/s.Greetha Senthilkumar for R.3
Mr.R.Thiagarajan,
Senior Counsel for
Mr.R.Srinivasalu for R.4 & R.6
Mr.S.Manoharan for R.9
Mr.S.Kumaresan for R.11
Mr.S.K.Mani for R.12
Mr.P.H.Aravindh Pandian,
Senior Counsel for
Mr.S.D.S.Philip for R.13
Mr.W.Thobias Arul for R.14
Mr.R.Venkatachalapathy for R.17
No appearance for R.5, R.7, R.8, R.10,
R.15, R.16.
* * * * *
L.P.A.No.5 of 2015:
A.Maher Antony ... Appellant/
12thRespondent/12th Respondent
Vs.
1.Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church,
represented by its
Secretary,
E.D.Charles,
Tranquebar House,
Trichirappalli 620 001.
2.Dr.E.D.Charles,
Secretary,
Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church (TELC),
Tranquebar House,
Trichirappalli - 620 001. ... Respondents 1 and 2/
Applicants 1 & 2/Petitioners 1 & 2
3.Rt. Rev. Dr.H.A.Martin,
Bishop,
Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church,
Tranquebar House,
Trichirappalli 620 001.
4.D.Ravindran
5.Rev.M.S.Arivannal
6.Rev.D.Jesupatham
7.Rev.J.Jesupillai
8.Rev.D.Daniel Jayaraj
9.Prof.P.M.Bhaskaran
10.G.Prabhakaran
11.Rev.R.Valarmathy
12.R.Vincent Rover
13.S.Martin Devaraj
14.E.Lawrence
15.G.Muthukrishnan
16.G.Marthandam
17.Kanagaraj,
Administrator,
Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church,
Tranquebar House,
Trichirappalli 620 001. ... Respondents 3 to 17/
Respondents 1 to 11 and 13 to 16 / Respondents 1 to 11 and 13 to 16
18.Rt. Rev. S.Edwin Jayakumar,
Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church,
Tranquebar House,
Trichirappalli 620 001. ... 18th Respondent
(R.18 impleaded as party respondent vide order dated 01.03.2016 made in M.P.No.2 of 2015 in L.P.A.No.5 of 2015.)
PRAYER: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order passed by this Court in Sub.A.No.420 of 2014 in Contempt Petition No.2715 of 2013, dated 22.04.2015.
For Appellant : Mr.P.H.Aravindh Pandian,
Senior Counsel for Mr.S.D.S.Philip
For Respondents : Mr.G.Masilamani,
Senior Counsel for
Mr.S.Manisundara Gopal for R.1 & R.2
Mr.Vijay Narayan,
Senior Counsel for
Mr.R.Jayaprakash for R.3
Mr.S.Prabakaran,
Senior Counsel for
M/s.Greetha Senthilkumar for R.4
Mr.R.Thiagarajan,
Senior Counsel for
Mr.R.Srinivasalu for R.5 & R.7
Mr.S.Manoharan for R.10
Mr.S.Kumaresan for R.12
Mr.S.K.Mani for R.13
Mr.W.Thobias Arul for R.14
Mr.R.Venkatachalapathy for R.17
Mr.R.Kannan for R.18
No appearance for R.6, R.8, R.9, R.11,
R.15, R.16.
Mr.T.V.Ramanujam,
Senior Counsel for
Mr.C.Jagadish, for impleading petitioner
in C.M.P.No.13502 of 2016.
Mr.S.Vinod Sathya Laser
for impleading petitioner in M.P.No.4 of 2015
* * * * *
Contempt Petition No.1531 of 2015:
Rt. Rev. Dr. H.A.Martin,
Bishop,
Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church,
Tranquebar House,
Trichirappalli - 620 001. ... Petitioner/
Petitioner/Appellant
Vs.
Dr.E.D.Charles,
Secretary,
Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church (TELC),
Tranquebar House,
Trichirappalli - 620 001. ... Respondent/
2nd Respondent/2nd Respondent
PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to punish the respondent for wilfully disobeying the order passed in M.P.No.1 of 2015 in L.P.A.No.3 of 2015, dated 07.05.2015.
For Petitioner : Mr.Vijay Narayan,
Senior Counsel for
Mr.R.Jayaprakash for R.3
For Respondent : Mr.G.Masilamani,
Senior Counsel for
Mr.S.Manisundara Gopal
* * * * *
COMMON JUDGMENT
M.SATHYANARAYANAN,J.
These two Letters Patent Appeals are filed by the first and twelfth respondents respectively in Sub Application No.420 of 2014 in Contempt Petition No.2715 of 2013, challenging the legality of the Order, dated 22.04.2015, made in the said Application, in and by which, the learned Judge had ordered the Sub-Application with a clarification and permitted one Dr.Rev.S.Edwin Jeyakumar to continue as the Bishop of Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church (in short 'TELC').
2. Contempt Petition No.1531 of 2015 is filed by the appellant in L.P.A.No.3 of 2015, alleging disobedience of the Order made in M.P.No.1 of 2015 in L.P.A.No.3 of 2015, dated 07.05.2015.
3. The facts leading to the filing of these cases are intertwined and hence, both the Letters Patent Appeals as well as the Contempt Petition are disposed of by this Common Judgment/Order.
4. Narration of facts may lead to exhaustion of hundreds of pages and hence, it is not necessary to re-state the same once again except mentioning below the details of the Judgment/Orders passed in the earlier rounds of litigation and narrating only those facts which were not already covered exhaustively. [see. The judgment dated 04.03.2008 made in O.S.A.Nos.388, 389, 397, 398 to 406 of 2007 and 25 of 2008 along with Miscellaneous Petitions - The Bishop/President, TELC and another v. S.D.Mohan Das Gandhi and others; The order dated 12.03.2010 made in C.R.P(MD)No.538 of 2010 - TELC represented by its present Secretary, E.D.Charles v. Daniel Shanmugam and others reported in 2010 (5) CTC 481; The common order dated 14.12.2010 made in C.R.P(MD)Nos.2385 and 2386 of 2010 and Cont. P(MD)Nos.648 and 681 of 2010 - Rt.Rev.Dr.H.A.Martin and another v. TELC represented by its Secretary, E.D.Charles and others reported in 2011 (1) CTC 395; The order dated 29.01.2013 made in M.P(MD)No.3 of 2012 in C.R.P(MD)No.2385 of 2010 - TELC represented by its Secretary and 8 others v. Rt.Rev.Dr.H.A.Martin, President/Bishop, TELC, and others; The order dated 06.09.2013 made in Cont.P.No.1266 of 2013 and Sub.A.Nos.287 to 289 and 626 of 2013 - E.D.Charles v. Rt.Rev.Dr.H.A.Martin, Bishop, TELC and 6 others; The orders dated 27.08.2014 and 22.04.2015 made in Sub.A.No.420 of 2014 in Cont.P.No.2715 of 2013.]
5. TELC was registered as a Society under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, in the year 1919 and one of the objects of the said Society was to care for salvation of its Members. TELC has about 108850 Congregations and 113 Pastorates in 10 Districts of the State of Tamil Nadu. The Pastorate Conference Members elect (a) Pastorate Committee; (b) Synod Committee; and (c) District Committee. The Synod would elect the Church Council, comprising of 5 Lay Members and 3 Clergymen. The Church Council is the Chief Administrative Body of TELC. The President of the Council is the Bishop of Tranquebar House. The Bishop is elected by a separate process. The tenure of the elected members of the Church Council is 3 years, called 'Triennium' and the tenure of the Bishop is 10 years or 65 years of age, whichever is earlier.
6. TELC runs and administers 9 Higher Secondary Schools, 128 Primary Schools, 2 Old Age Homes, 28 Orphanages, 1 Hospital, 1 College and 2 Teacher Training Institutions.
7. In respect of elections to the Church Council held once in three years, very many litigations were launched, the details of which are broadly referred to in paragraph No.27 of the decision in Rt. Rev.Dr.H.A.Martin and another v. TELC represented by its Secretary, E.D.Charles and others, reported in 2011 (1) CTC 395.
8. In that line, while conducting election to the Church Council by 40th Triennium Synod, a litigation had cropped up in C.S.No.713 of 2007 and, pending disposal of the same, certain interim orders were passed in O.A.Nos.964 and 965 of 2007, 6091 of 2007 and A.No.5748 of 2007 and, challenging the said orders, O.S.A.Nos.388, 389, 397, 398 to 406 of 2007 and 25 of 2008 came to be filed. All the Appeals were disposed of by a Common Judgment, dated 04.03.2008, and it is relevant to extract below paragraph No.69 therefrom:-
69. We, therefore, hold that
i) The Synod is always for a triennium and the consistency maintained from the first Synod of 1887-1890 till the 39th Synod of 2004-2007 should be maintained for the future years also except for any special Synod as provided under Rule 133.
ii) The 39th Triennial Synod ended in May 2007 and the 40th Triennial Synod should be for the period 2007-2010.
iii) The tenure of the Church Council should always synchronise with the Triennial Synod.
iv) The Church Council Members are entitled to get re-elected any number of terms and Rule 117 (Note 2) which conflicts with Section 15(5) of Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 cannot therefore operate.
v) The 40th Triennial Synod should be held as per schedule of dates prescribed in para 60 of this order.
vi) The first appellant-Bishop is directed to hold the 40th Triennial Synod and the election for the Church Council Members as per rules.
The Order of the learned single Judge in so far as it related to the appointment of Administrator and the consequential directions issued are hereby set aside. The appeals are partly allowed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs. All Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Time schedule was also given in the said judgment for holding the 40th Triennial Synod for the period 2007-2010.
9. The first respondent in the said Appeals had filed Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) in C.C.4783 of 2008 before the Honourable Supreme Court and it was disposed of on 07.04.2008, observing that the elections to the Church Council of the TELC should be held under the supervision of Mr.Justice J.Kanagaraj, who was appointed as Administrator by the learned Single Judge. By taking note of the fact that certain election process had already been taken up, the Apex Court reiterated that holding of elections should be only under the supervision of Mr.Justice J.Kanagaraj.
10. Again, one Daniel Shanmugam had filed O.S.No.120 of 2010 on the file of the I Additional Sub Judge, Madurai, challenging the election notification dated 28.01.2010, calling for election of members to the Venerable Church Council for the 41st Triennium (2010-2013) for the period between 07.05.2010 to 06.05.2013 and, pending disposal of the same, he had obtained an interim order dated 03.03.2010, passed in I.A.No.91 of 2010. Aggrieved thereby, C.R.P.(MD)No.538 of 2010 was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the TELC represented by the present Secretary, E.D.Charles. As per the Order dated 12.03.2010, the learned Judge, by finding that the election process had already commenced, had set aside the grant of interim order in the said Application and also made it clear that such election would be subject to the result of the final decision in O.S.No.120 of 2010, with a direction to the trial Court to expedite the suit proceedings. The said order is reported in 2010 (5) CTC 481 (the Tamilnadu Evangelical Lutheran Church Daniel v. Shanmugam).
11. The Members of the Church Council of TELC had filed O.S.No.1001 of 2010 on the file of the I Additional Sub Judge, Trichy, praying for a declaration that the order passed by the Bishop, TELC, in President/Bishop's Emergency Circular No.1/2010, dated 14.09.2010, exercising the emergency powers to take over the Church Council was illegal and for other consequential benefits and, pending disposal of the said suit, I.A.No.1119 of 2010 was filed praying for grant of an ad-interim injunction, restraining the Bishop from interfering with the administration of the Institution by the elected Church Council Members and another Application in I.A.No.1120 of 2010 was also filed praying for a direction to the Commissioner of Police, Trichy, to break open the lock of the Central Office and provide protection to the applicants/plaintiffs, enabling them to function as elected Church Council Members.
12. The I Additional Sub Court had allowed both the Applications in I.A.Nos.1119 and 1120 of 2010 on 12.11.2010. Being aggrieved thereby, C.R.P.(MD)Nos.2385 and 2386 of 2010 were filed by the appellant in L.P.A.No.3 of 2015, namely, Rt.Rev.Dr.H.A.Martin and another. The learned Single Judge of this Court had disposed of both the Revision Cases on 14.12.2010 along with Contempt Petition (MD)Nos.643 and 681 of 2010 and it is relevant to extract paragraph No.53 hereunder:
53. Therefore, the revisions and the contempt petitions are disposed of with the following directions:
(a) Justice J.Kanakaraj, (Retd.) is appointed as the Administrator of Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church;
(b) The Church Council elected in May 2010, with the Bishop as its President shall henceforth function, till the disposal of the main suits (for which separate directions are issued hereunder), under the guidance, supervision and control of the Administrator;
(c) The elected Members of the Church Council, who have opened (or broken opened) the Central Office of the institution at Trichy and taken over the records, pursuant to the interim order passed by the Sub Judge, Trichy, shall hand over all the records to the Administrator within a week;
(d) The Bishop/President shall hand over all the records relating to the transfers, postings and appointments made on and from 14.9.2010, to the Administrator. The Administrator shall scrutinise these records, hear the parties affected by such transfers, postings and appointments and pass appropriate orders, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Those orders shall be binding on (i) the Bishop/President; (ii) the Church Council; and (iii) persons who are subjected to such transfers and postings. I am making the decision of the Administrator binding even on the persons who are subjected to transfers and postings, for the simple reason that though the Church Council has challenged such transfers and postings ordered by the Bishop/President after 14.9.2010, those affected parties have not chosen to come to Court. Therefore, I am making them bound by the decision of the Administrator, especially in view of the fact that the Administrator has also been directed to hear them before passing final orders;
(e) All meetings of the Church Council shall be held henceforth, under the supervision and control of the Administrator. If there is any conflict of opinion between the Bishop/President on the one hand and the elected Church Council on the other hand, the Administrator shall find out what is good for the institution and take appropriate decision. His decision shall be final and binding on the Church Council and the Bishop/President;
(f) All the suits, listed in the annexure to this order, (other than those pre election suits which have already been ordered to be transferred to the Principal City Civil Court, Chennai, by an earlier order) shall stand transferred to the file of the Principal District Court, Tiruchirappalli, who shall allot all of them to any one of the Additional District Courts (or Fast Track Courts). The Court to which all the suits are transferred, shall segregate the cases category wise and first take up for hearing, only those suits (i) where the elections to the Triennium 2010-2013 are substantially under challenge; and (ii) where the emergency circular dated 14.9.2010 issued by the Bishop/President is under challenge. Since some of the pre election suits have been transferred to the Principal City Civil Court, Chennai by judicial order dated 18.10.2010 by R.S.Ramanathan,J, and also since some of the parties to those suits are not before me, I am unable to order re-transfer of all those suits from the Principal City Civil Court, Chennai to the Principal District Court, Tiruchirappalli. However, the parties are directed to take out appropriate application within two weeks on the appellate side of this Court for transfer of even those suits which have already been transferred to the Principal City Civil Court, Chennai, so that they shall also be transferred to the Principal District Court, Tiruchirappalli.
(g) If in the suits so taken up for hearing first, the election of the present body of Church Council (elected in May 2010) is upheld and in addition, if the circular issued under Rule 194 by the Bishop/President is also set aside, then, the Administrator shall demit office and hand over charge to the Church Council represented by the Secretary. On the other hand, if the elections held in May 2010 are held to be invalid or if the elections as well as the emergency circular are upheld, then, the Administrator shall proceed to conduct fresh elections as per the bye laws;
(h) Till the first batch of suits segregated as per the preceding clauses are taken up for hearing and disposed of, none of the immovable properties of the institution shall be sold or encumbered in any manner;
(i) All transfers, postings and appointments to all educational and other institutions, which are considered necessary by the Bishop/President and/or by the Church Council, shall be placed in a meeting of the Church Council, convened under the supervision of the Administrator. If there is unanimity of opinion among the elected members and the President, those transfers, postings and appointments shall take place. If there is divergence of opinion, the same shall be resolved by the Administrator and his decision shall be final;
(j) The Administrator shall be present in all the meetings of the Church Council. All decisions taken in the meetings of the Church Council without any conflict between the Bishop/President on the one hand and the elected Members on the other hand, shall stand approved. But, if there is conflict of opinion between the Bishop/President on the one hand and the elected Members on the other hand, then, the Administrator shall take a decision which shall be binding upon the Church Council;
(k) Since the flow of funds and control over properties whose values keep mounting, have been the root cause for all the problems faced by the institution and also since the Administrator may find it extremely difficult to look after even the distribution of the monthly salaries to the staff of all the institutions, I am of the view that the salaries of the teaching and non teaching staff of the educational institutions run by TELC, with the grant in aid received from the State Government, shall be arranged to be paid directly to the employees through the Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education or the local school educational authorities. The Administrator shall take necessary steps within 3 weeks to write to the School/Collegiate Education authorities to henceforth make direct payment to the staff through electronic clearing system or other modes as prevalent in Government educational institutions.
(l) Since it was represented that due to the stalemate created by both parties, several payments could not be made to the Orphanages run by TELC and to the retired Pastors, the Administrator is requested to disburse such payments as are actually due, before Christmas, so that those innocent beneficiaries do not become victims of this (un)holy war, especially at a time when their festival season commences;
(m) No suit or other original proceedings, touching upon (i) the elections to the Synod, the Church Council and Bishop/President; and (ii) the management and administration of TELC, shall henceforth be entertained by any Court other than the Principal District Court, Tiruchirappalli, within whose jurisdiction the registered office of TELC is situate. It shall be open to the Principal District Court, Tiruchirappalli to assign those cases to any of the Additional District Courts or Fast Track Courts. But, this restriction shall not apply to the employees of the various institutions run by TELC, to ventilate their individual grievances, before appropriate authorities/Courts;
(n) The Administrator shall be paid a remuneration of Rs.30,000/- per month, apart from reimbursement of the expenses incurred by him towards the discharge of his duties. It will be open to the Administrator to engage the services of one or two secretarial staff, to assist him. The remuneration of such staff shall be fixed by him and the same shall also be reimbursed by the institution;
(o) All routine and regular payments, in respect of which there is no conflict between the Bishop/President and the Church Council, shall be continued to be made in the same manner as is done in normal times or by way of cheques signed by the President and Treasurer. Expenditure/payments in respect of which there is a controversy, shall be placed before the Administrator for his decision. If the Administrator approves an expenditure/payment, the President as well as the Treasurer shall sign the cheques for effecting such payments;
(p) To avoid any controversy and to clear all doubts regarding the role of the Administrator, it is clarified that the Administrator is not appointed as a substitute for the Church Council. He is appointed only as a Supervisor and a Facilitator, with powers to step in, whenever there is a conflict of opinion or clash of interests between the Bishop/President on the one hand and the Church Council on the other hand. In respect of decisions taken by consensus by both groups (President and Church Council), the Administrator would have no independent say;
(q) The arrangement made as above, shall continue till the disposal of the first set of cases by the Court to which they now stand transferred, or till the next elections. If it so happens that the elections themselves (to the next Triennium or even to the remaining period of the present Triennium) become due to be held even during the regime of the Administrator, the Administrator himself shall ensure free and fair elections and hand over charge to the newly elected Body;
(r) All interim orders passed by all courts in the cases listed in the table in paragraph 27 above, shall stand superseded to the extent they are in conflict with the directions issued herein above; and
(s) The Administrator is at liberty to seek appropriate directions as and when necessary.
The civil revisions petitions are disposed of on the above terms. The contempt petitions are closed, with the hope that both parties will extend their whole hearted co-operation to the Administrator and avoid any further act of contempt. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2010 in both the revision petitions are closed. The above Order is reported in 2011 (1) CTC 395 (cited supra).
13. Subsequently, the District Registrar of Societies had sent communications to TELC calling upon them to amend their bye-laws in tune with the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 and the Rules framed thereunder. Expressing difficulty in implementing the said direction, TELC had requested the Government to exempt them from the provisions of Sections 14, 15(3), 15(4), 15(5), 25(3), 26(1), 26(4), 28(1)(2), 29(3) and 36 of the said Act. The Government of Tamil Nadu, vide G.O.Ms.No.1708, Industries Department, dated 18.12.1981, had granted exemption only with respect to Sections 15(4), 25(3) and 29(3) of the Act and, not satisfied with the partial exemption made available, TELC represented by the Secretary had filed W.P.No.523 of 1982 praying for a declaration that the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 and the Rules framed thereunder are unconstitutional, void and inapplicable to the TELC, and it was dismissed on 20.11.1990 as premature, with a liberty to the TELC to submit a representation to the Government praying for exemption from the provisions of the said Act. However, the said benefit was not availed and, in the interregnum, Rt.Rev.Aruldoss was elected as Bishop on 12.12.1998 by the Synod/the General Body by a process of election and, as per Rule 120 of the Church Rules, he became the President of the Church and inter se disputes arose between the Bishop, TELC, Tranquebar House,Trichy, on one side and one Moses Thambi Pillai and others on the other side, which resulted in ordering of an enquiry by the Inspector General of Registration as to the payments made. The Inspector General of Registration, based on the enquiry, had directed the District Registrar to recover the wages paid to the officers and, in the meanwhile, representations seemed to have been submitted in terms of the order passed in W.P.No.523 1982 for cancelling the G.O.Ms. No.1708, Industries Department, dated 18.12.1981, and other consequential reliefs and the same seemed to have not been given disposal. Therefore, W.P.No.32494 of 2002 was filed and, vide order dated 07.08.2002, this Court had directed the Government to consider and dispose of the representation, dated 03.08.2001, in accordance with law. Accordingly, the Government had issued the letter, dated 08.11.2002, granting exemption from the operation of Section 25(3) of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, and ratified the action of the Church in having paid the salary from out of its funds to the President or full time worker of the Church from 29.04.1978 till the date of the said Government Order dated 18.12.1981 and thereafter, the Society was not exempted from the provisions for the future. W.P.No.45886 of 2002 was filed by A.Moses Thambi Pillai for the issuance of a mandamus, directing the Registration Authorities to take immediate follow-up action to implement the findings contained in the results of the enquiry of the Inspector General of Registration, dated 23.07.2002 and also, among other things, to direct the Treasurer, TELC, Trichy, to forthwith take action to recover all the amounts that were paid to the President and Officers of TELC from out of the funds of the Church from 19.12.1981. The said Writ Petition was allowed on 11.12.2006, directing the Registration Department to effect recovery forthwith. Challenging the same, W.A.No.481 of 2007 was filed and one Dr.B.Vijayan filed M.P.No.1 of 2010 to implead him as a party. The said writ appeal was dismissed on 28.02.2011 with the following observations:
18. Further, while as per Rule 120 of the Rules, the President shall be the Bishop, and thereby proceeds to mean that no separate election is needed for the Bishop to assume the office of the President, in view of non-exemption of Section 15(3) of the Act, the Bishop so elected need to be elected to the post of President also. As has already been observed by us supra, these are some of the inconsistent rules framed and followed by the Church which are in direct conflict with the provisions of the Act and only because of these inconsistencies, the official respondents have observed in the impugned communications that the bye-laws of the Church are inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. Probably, realising this, the Church has now presented fresh bye-laws for the approval of the Registration. Therefore, while considering and approving the amended bye-laws of the Church and considering the exemption application submitted by the Church, the Government is required to weigh the pros and cons and arrive at a judicious conclusion and see that no incongruity persist between the provisions of the Act and the bye-laws of the Church.
14. Dr.E.D.Charles, Secretary, Church Council, had submitted a representation, dated 17.12.2011, forwarding the amended Bye-laws along with the Resolution of the General Body to the District Registrar of Societies, Trichy, for approval.
15. The Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Secretariat, Chennai 9, by referring to the orders passed in W.P.No.45886 of 2002, dated 11.12.2006 and W.A.No.481 of 2007, dated 28.02.2011 as well as the order of the Honourable Supreme Court in S.L.P.(Civil)No.20897 of 2011, dated 16.03.2012, and had issued a letter/show cause notice dated 08.05.2012, to the TELC as to why a Special Officer under Section 34-A of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, shall not be appointed by superseding the Committee to manage the affairs of the Society/TELC as the Committee failed to follow the orders dated 11.12.2006 made in W.P.No.45886 of 2002 as confirmed in the judgment, dated 28.02.2011, passed in W.A.No.481 of 2007.
16. The said show cause notice was put to challenge by the TELC represented by the Secretary E.D.Charles, by filing W.P.No.13875 of 2012 and this Court had disposed of the said writ petition vide order, dated 08.11.2012, directing the Administrative Department to consider and dispose of the petitioner's explanation submitted to the show cause notice, in accordance with law, within the stipulated time. In W.P.No.13874 of 2012 filed by the TELC, praying for consideration of the representation, dated 25.06.2007, for exemption of Bye-laws from the application of Sections 15(3) and 25(2)(3) of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, this Court had passed an order, dated 08.11.2012, to consider and dispose of the said representation. Accordingly, the Administrative Department, namely, the Commercial Taxes and Registration (M1) Department, had considered the representation and passed G.O.Ms.No.1, Commercial Taxes and Registration (M1) Department, dated 03.01.2013, observing that the request of the TELC is not feasible of compliance for the reason that the Bye-laws of the Society/TELC are inconsistent with the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act and the Rules framed thereunder and therefore, the bye-laws have to be amended suitably.
17. TELC represented by the Secretary and 8 others had filed M.P.(MD)No.3 of 2012 in C.R.P.(MD)No.2385 of 2010 against the Bishop Rt.Rev.Dr.H.A.Martin, the appellant in L.P.A.No.3 of 2015 and 4 others, praying for grant of permission in favour of the first petitioner therein to sell 12 items of properties mentioned in the schedule, by relaxing the conditions imposed in the final orders passed in C.R.P(MD)No.2385 of 2010. The learned Judge, by order dated 29.01.2013, while disposing of the said Miscellaneous Petition, had narrated the sequence of events and also the long-drawn litigation and ultimately allowed the said petition on the following terms:
28. But, if on an independent appraisal of the state of affairs, the Administrator, who is a very respected and retired learned Judge of this Court also has the same opinion that some of the properties could be sold, I think that the objections of the impleaded respondents cannot at all be sustained. Therefore, this miscellaneous petition is allowed with the following directions:
(i) the retired Judge of this Court, appointed as the Administrator, is requested to consider if the sale of the properties are essential, taking into account the financial status of the Society, the income that the Society periodically gets, the expenditure that they are forced to underwrite, and the shortfall between the two;
(ii) if the Administrator considers that the sale of the properties is essential, the sale of the properties shall take place, first after obtaining the valuation report from qualified persons, then fixing the upset price for each of the properties and thereafter, inviting offers through newspaper advertisements as well as online advertisements; and
(iii) the sale of the properties shall take place under the supervision of the Administrator, so that the properties fetch a fair and reasonable rate and that the Society is not put to prejudice.
The above miscellaneous petition is allowed on the above terms.
18. By TELC's Notification, dated 04.02.2013, Dr.E.D.Charles, the Secretary of the Church Council, TELC, had convened a Synod/Extraordinary General Body Meeting fixing the date as 27.02.2013 to consider the subject, namely, G.O.Ms.No.1, Commercial Taxes and Registration (M1) Department, Government of Tamilnadu, dated 03.01.2013, and any other subject with the permission of the Chair and accordingly, the said meeting was conducted. After discussion in the said Meeting, the following resolutions were unanimously passed:
It was resolved to obey the Government Order Section 15(3) and note that the period of the Executive Members, viz., the President, Secretary, Treasurer and other Church Council Members is three years.
It was resolved to get exemption for Sections 25(2), 25(3) and 26 from the Government.
It was resolved to continue the Representative General Body because it is a Herculean task to call the Members of the General Body from the entire Tamilnadu State and also nearby States, viz., Karnataka, Kerala and Puducherry. The General Body Members strongly requested the Executive Members to get special Exemption from the Government only to Section No.26 and to follow the existing Representative capacity of the General Body.
It was resolved to accept the draft Bye-Laws and authorize the Venerable Church Council Secretary to submit the same to the District Registrar, Tiruchirappalli for getting approval.
It was resolved to request the Church Council to send Second Notification at the earliest to conduct the General Body Meeting to elect 9 members (4 Clergy + 5 Lay one among them atleast a woman as per the Draft Bye-Laws) for the Triennium 2013-2016.
It was resolved to elect one Vice-President for the rest of the Triennium 2010-2013 in the Venerable Church Council.
It was resolved to keep up our Church Tradition by giving Salary and Voting right to our Church Workers as usual and necessary exemption should be obtained from the Government of Tamilnadu.
19. Immediately after the aforesaid TELC's Notification, dated 04.02.2013, that was on 05.02.2013, both the Bishop as well as the Secretary, TELC, while addressing a letter to the Government/Secretary, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Chennai, intimated that the Judge Administrator (Mr.Justice J.Kanagaraj) has assumed the Role of Administrator and that he is conducting the Church Council Meetings periodically. In accordance with the decision taken in the Extraordinary General Body Meeting held on 27.02.2013, Dr.E.D.Charles, Secretary, Church Council, had submitted a representation, dated 05.03.2013, to the District Registrar of Societies, Trichy, praying for approval of the amended bye-laws and also enclosed the Draft Bye-laws along with the said representation.
20. The District Registrar, in response to the said representation, had sent a communication dated 22.03.2013, under R.No.986/AaB3/2010, indicating that amendments need to be done in the Bye-laws referred, by pointing out thus:
G. The activities of the Society.
1.12- It is mentioned that the TELC Society shall have a two tier administration and v.5) Elected lay delegates from pastorates. The tenure of the GB is 3 years. According to Bye-law 26, the office bearers shall be elected by the General Body. The amendment proposed is contrary to the Bye-law 26.
2.G(a) The activities of the Society In 12, it is mentioned that the church workers and Pastor are paid salary, while according to Section 25(2), (3) the office bearers are not eligible for salary. Hence the amendment is against the said Section.
3.4) and 5(2)(a). Procedure for the Election of Executive Committee Members.
In (a) it is mentioned that a Member shall be declared ....... ....... ........ meeting. In case of tie, lots shall cost'. According to the General Clause, in the event of tie, the Chairperson shall resolve through casting vote. Hence, the amendment is against the General Clause.
4.The words Church Society be changed as TELC Society.
5.It shall be mentioned as G.B. otherwise called Synod
6.Consolidated audit report for every year audited by a charted accountant should be filed in the District Registrar office.
7.K(v) removal of members by E C should get ratification from G.B in the on coming meeting.
21. Consequent thereto, the TELC further amended the Draft Bye-laws and, by letter dated 03.04.2013, Dr.E.D.Charles, Secretary, Church Council of TELC, submitted the same to the District Registrar of Societies, Trichy, for consideration.
22. The Judge-Administrator, in compliance of the order passed in C.R.P(MD)Nos.2385 and 2386 of 2010, issued the Election Notification in respect of the Church Council for the Triennium 2013-2016. However, the appellant in L.P.A.No.3 of 2015, namely, Rt.Rev.Dr.H.A.Martin, called for a General Body meeting on 26.04.2013 and this Court, vide order dated 25.04.2013 made in M.P.No.1 of 2013 in W.P.No.12525 of 2013, granted an ad-interim injunction restraining Rt.Rev.Dr.H.A.Martin from conducting the General Body meeting on 26.04.2013 or any other subsequent meeting. The Judge-Administrator consequently conducted the General Body meeting on 02.05.2013, wherein, 597 Members comprising the General Body of TELC had participated and the election was conducted and the total votes polled were 523, out of which, 6 votes were declared as invalid and there were 517 valid votes and the following office bearers were elected for the Church Council of TELC for the Triennium 2013-2016:
Rev.S.Edwin Jaykumar was elected as President, TELC;
Dr.E.D.Charles, as Secretary, TELC;
Rev.S.A.Packiyanathan as Vice-President, TELC;
Mr.I.E.P.Gnanaraj as Treasurer, TELC;
Rev.P.Immavuel;
Rev.S.A.Packianathan;
Rev.C.Sam Jebaraj Stephenon;
Mrs.S.Daisy Rani;
Mr.D.Masilamani Prince and Mr.M.Yogan and are the Church Council Members of the TELC.
23. The Judge-Administrator, in this regard, had also sent necessary communication, dated 03.05.2013, to the District Registrar (Societies), Trichy, with the copies marked to the President, TELC, the Secretary, TELC, and the Treasurer, TELC.
24. The Judge-Administrator had also filed an Affidavit, dated 07.05.2013, in C.R.P(PD)(MD)Nos.2385 and 2386 of 2010, etc. cases, stating among other things about the election of the above said office bearers and their installation as Church Council Members and also indicated that he did not want to continue as Administrator any longer in view of the hate and disharmony between the Bishop and the other Church Council Members and prayed for his relinquishment.
25. Dr.E.D.Charles, who was elected as Secretary, TELC, had filed W.P(MD)No.9203 of 2013 along with the Miscellaneous Petitions, praying for disposal of his representation, directing the Commissioner of Police, Tiruchirappalli, to provide adequate police protection to discharge his duties as an Office-bearer and the said writ petition was disposed of on 07.06.2013 with the following directions:
7. It is seen that the election was conducted by the Court appointed Administrator on 02.05.2013. The new office bearers including the petitioner were elected and they took charge on 02.05.2013 itself. On perusal of the communication dated 03.05.2013 written by the Administrator to the District Registrar and the peace committee meeting proceedings dated 03.05.2013, it is evident that the administration was handed over to the newly elected office bearers. When that is the position, the newly elected office bearers are entitled to run the administration. However, it is seen from the photographs produced by the petitioner that the main gate of the Central Office was locked. The locking of the Central Office is a high-handed one and as a result, the new office bearer are unable to disburse the payments to the employees of the institutions. If the lock is not opened and newly elected office bearers are not able to enter the premises it would paralise the administration. In view of that, the third respondent is directed to open the main office and hand over the possession to the newly elected office bearers on 08.06.2013 at 09.00 a.m. The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to be present in the premises by 08.30 a.m. and they are required to assist the parties while the opening of the gate.
8. After the newly elected office bearers taking over the possession, they are directed not to interfere with the office of the Bishop. Similarly, the third respondent shall not interfere with the administration of the newly elected office bearers. The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to give police protection to the litigant till the normalcy is restored. The police protection has to be given at the cost of the petitioner's Church.
9. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Call on 13.06.2013 for compliance.
26. Dr.E.D.Charles, alleging violation of the order dated 14.12.2010 passed in C.R.P(MD)No.2385 of 2010, on the part of the appellant in L.P.A.No.3 of 2015 Rt.Rev.Dr.H.A.Martin and 6 others, namely, D.Ravindran, Rev.Arul M.Selvaraj, Rev.M.S.Arivannal, Rev.J.Jesupillai, Prof.P.M.Baskaran and G.Prabhakaran, had filed Contempt Petition No.1266 of 2013 along with Sub Application Nos.287 to 289 and 526 of 2013. The learned Judge had ordered notice and, while disposing of the said Contempt Petition as well as Sub Applications on 06.09.2013, once again had traced the history of various litigations and ultimately, found that the first respondent, namely, Rt.Rev.Dr.H.A.Martin, the then Bishop of TELC the appellant in L.P.A.No.3 of 2015, is guilty of contempt of Court, and it is relevant to extract hereunder paragraph 28:
28. Therefore, it is clear that the only effective way to deal with this contempt, is to punish the contemnor and also remove the effect of the wrong done by him through his contemptuous act. Hence this contempt petition is ordered holding the first respondent guilty of contempt and declaring the meeting conducted by him on 26th and 27th April 2013 and the resolutions passed and decisions taken therein, as null and void. Though it is a clear case where I am inclined at least to impose a fine on the first respondent for his conscious violation of the orders of this court, I refrain from doing so since he is a Bishop. But I would certainly like him at least to seek pardon from the source, in whose jurisdiction, he has some faith. Consequently, persons elected in the properly convened 42nd Synod on May 2 to 4, 2013 are permitted to take charge, subject however to the final outcome of the suit pending in the trial court. Consequently, connected sub-applications are closed.
27. TELC represented by the Secretary, E.D.Charles, had filed Contempt Petition No.2715 of 2013 alleging violation of the orders, dated 29.01.2013, passed in M.P.No.3 of 2012 in C.R.P(MD)Nos.2385 and 2386 of 2010 against Rt.Rev.Dr.H.A.Martin the appellant in L.P.A.No.3 of 2015 and 15 others and, pending disposal of the same, he had taken out Sub Application Nos.701 and 702 of 2013 for restraining the respondents 1 to 13 from interfering with the administration of TELC and for a direction to declare that the sale deed Nos.968/2013, 969/2013 and 970/2013, dated 09.05.2013, registered at the office of the Sub Registrar, Periyakulam, executed by the respondents 3 and 4 are null and void. Sub Application No.703 of 2013 was also filed praying for an appropriate direction, directing the first respondent the appellant in L.P.A.No.3 of 2015 to hand over all the records, title deeds and revenue records of the properties belonging to the society/TELC to the petitioner and, in the interregnum, TELC represented by E.D.Charles, filed O.S.No.94 of 2012 on the file of the II Additional District Court, Tiruchirappalli, to declare that the President/Bishop's Emergency Circular No.1/2010, dated 14.09.2010, issued by the appellant in L.P.A.No.3 of 2015 abrogating the Church Council duly elected by the 41st Triennial Synod for the year 2010-2013 is illegal, null and void, etc., with further directions and ultimately, the said suit was dismissed as withdrawn on 25.11.2013.
28. The learned Judge, after issuing notice in the Contempt Petition No.2715 of 2013, had granted an order of interim injunction on 03.01.2014, restraining the first respondent Rt.Rev.H.A.Martin the appellant in L.P.A.No.3 of 2015 or anyone from convening any General Body and holding any election of Bishop. It was made clear that when the Bishop steps down on 13/14.01.2014, the lawfully elected Church Council headed by Mr.E.D.Charles shall take over the charge and discharge his duties also, until further orders. It was further made clear that such exercise will be in addition to the duties of the elected Church Council, that those headed by Mr.E.D.Charles were already carrying on. Ultimately, the matter was directed to be listed on 09.01.2013 for filing counter.
29. The appellant in L.P.A.No.3 of 2015, challenging the legality of the order, dated 06.09.2013, passed in Contempt Petition No.1266 of 2013, filed Contempt Appeal No.10 of 2013. A Division Bench of this Court took up the said Appeal and, vide judgment dated 28.02.2014, it was observed that the elected Members assumed office on 02.05.2013 itself and therefore, there was no need to issue a further direction to the elected Members to take charge subject to the final outcome of the pending civil suit. It was also made clear that the above said finding would not affect the assumption of charge by the elected Members on 02.05.2013. It is relevant to extract hereunder paragraph Nos.49 and 50:
49. The order impugned in this contempt appeal and the materials available on record clearly shows that the appellant wilfully disobeyed the directions given by the learned Single Judge by convening the Extraordinary General Body Meeting unilaterally and closing the office of the Society. We, therefore confirm the finding with regard to the contemptuous conduct of the appellant. However we set aside the direction given by the learned Single Judge, permitting the elected members to take charge, as it was unwarranted, in view of the factual finding recorded in W.P(MD)No.9203 of 2013, dated 7 June 2013, to the effect that the elected members took charge on 2 May 2013 itself.
50. In the upshot we allow the contempt appeal to the limited extent indicated above. No costs.
30. It is also to be pointed out at this juncture that though the appellant in L.P.A.No.3 of 2015 was found guilty of contempt, no order of punishment was passed against him and it was also confirmed. The above said judgment in Contempt Appeal No.10 of 2013 is also reported in 2014-1-L.W. 906 (Rt.Rev.Dr.HA Martin, Bishop, Trichurappalli v. E.D.Charles and others).
31. One D.Ravindran filed M.P.No.1 of 2014 in W.A.SR.No.43322 of 2014, seeking for grant of leave to file Writ Appeal as against the order dated 08.05.2014 passed in W.P.No.12484 of 2014 regarding the police protection to conduct Bishop's Consecration Service at Tranquebar and also the Public Meeting on 19.05.2014. A Division Bench of this Court, by Orders, dated 15.05.2014, observed that a separate election procedure is contemplated for the office of the Bishop and that the police authorities may not be in a position to advert to the rival contentions and arrive at a proper decision, when dispute to the office of the Bishop is before this Court, and ultimately, had granted leave and also suspended the order till 03.06.2014.
32. TELC represented by E.D.Charles, Secretary, filed Sub Application No.420 of 2014 against Rt.Rev.H.A.Martin, the appellant in L.P.A.No.3 of 2015 and 16 others, which include the appellant in L.P.A.No.5 of 2015, namely, A.Mehar Antony as well as the Judge-Administrator, praying for modification of the order dated 03.01.2014 made in Contempt Petition No.2715 of 2013 to enable them to consecrate the President of TELC as 12th Bishop of TELC in accordance with the amended bye-laws and the said application was also opposed by D.Ravindran the second respondent as well as by A.Mehar Antony the 12th respondent/appellant in L.P.A.No.5 of 2015.
33. The learned Single Judge had taken up the said Sub Application for disposal and, once again, traced the history of series of litigations and found, by orders, dated 27.08.2014, that no one appears to have successfully challenged the stipulation contained in the Annexure to the Notification No.II/2013, dated 21.03.2013 and, as per the report of the Judge-Administrator, Rev.S.Edwin Jayakumar was elected as the President and therefore, the claim of the petitioners that he is to be consecrated as Bishop is well founded.
34. The learned Judge further found that, in pursuance of the direction of the District Registrar of Societies to amend the bye-laws in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 and the Rules framed thereunder, in the Extraordinary General Body meeting held on 27.02.2013, attended by Rt.Rev.Dr.H.A.Martin the appellant in L.P.A.No.3 of 2015, a resolution was also passed, accepting the amendments to the bye-laws and, that is why, the Annexure to the Notification No.II/2013, dated 21.03.2013, indicates that the person getting elected as the President will be consecrated as the Bishop within a month. It was specifically observed that, in the interest of the Institution itself, it has to be held that an amendment of the bye-laws had already taken place and that the said aspect was indicated in the General Body Notification No.II/2013, dated 21.03.2013. So holding, the learned Judge allowed the said application and also clarified the earlier order dated 03.01.2014 to the effect that the person elected as President, namely, Rev.S.Edwin Jayakumar can be consecrated as Bishop and that there is no impediment for the same.
35. Challenging the said orders made in Sub Application No.420 of 2014 in Contempt Petition No.2715 of 2013, the 12th Respondent, namely, A.Maher Antony, filed L.P.A.No.3 of 2014 and it was entertained. After the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in H.A.Martin and others v. Moses Thambi Pillai and others reported in 2015 (2) SCC 121 : 2015-1-L.W. 289, L.P.A.No.3 of 2014 came up on 08.10.2014 for final disposal before the First Bench of this Court, to which, one of us [M.SATHYANARAYANAN,J.] is a party and it is relevant to extract below paragraph Nos.2 to 4 therefrom:-
2. The aforesaid judgment is post the impugned order and naturally, learned Single Judge did not have the benefit of the judgment. The impugned order proceeds on the basis of the applicability of the provisions of the said Act. If one may say, as even urged by the Counsels, the various legal proceedings instituted also proceed on that basis and thus, this judgment would have a larger ramification.
3. In view of the aforesaid, it is agreed that the learned Single Judge may have a re-look on the issue arising from the impugned order, albeit by way of a clarification in a contempt proceeding. All the parties would naturally have the right to urge their respective submissions, but keeping in mind the fresh legal position arising from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to aforesaid.
4. The matter is thus remitted back to the learned Single Judge for reconsideration in view of the aforesaid development and the letters patent appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected MP is closed.
36. Thus, after remand, Sub Application No.420 of 2014 in Contempt Petition No.2715 of 2013 was taken up for disposal by the learned Judge (Hon'ble Mr.Justice V.Ramasubramanian). The learned Judge, after framing a question as to whether the decision rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court would have a bearing on the finding recorded on 27.08.2014, had proceeded to dispose of the matter on 22.04.2015 and observed that merely because an amendment took place due to the wrong application of a law, the amendment will not stand automatically annulled and the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court has the effect of taking away the motive behind the amendment, but the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court will not annul the very amendment itself and therefore, held that the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court strengthens the amendment in the sense that the amendment does not require any approval of the District Registrar of Societies and the amendment can come into effect without any approval from any statutory authority.
37. The learned Judge also observed that Rev.S.Edwin Jayakumar has already been consecrated as Bishop on 31.08.2014 and therefore, he cannot be unseated questioning the maintainability of the present application and passed the following order:
21. In fine,
(a) Sub-Application is ordered clarifying that neither my order dated 3.1.2014 nor the law laid down by the Apex court on 4.9.2014 was an impediment for the consecration of Rev.S.Edwin Jayakumar as the Bishop; and
(b) since Rev.S.Edwin Jayakumar has already been consecrated as Bishop on 31.8.2014, the respondents cannot attempt to unseat him today merely by opposing this application, without even challenging the amendment to the bye-laws before the appropriate Civil Court namely the Principal District Court, Tiruchirappalli.
38. Rt.Rev.Dr.H.A.Martin the first respondent as well as A.Mehar Antony - the 12th respondent, aggrieved by the aforesaid observations as well as the finding that Rev.S.Edwin Jayakumar was already consecrated as Bishop on 31.08.2014 and he cannot be unseated, have filed L.P.A.Nos.3 and 5 of 2015 respectively.
39. In the interregnum, the judgment, dated 28.02.2011, made in W.A.No.481 of 2011 was put to challenge by H.A.Martin and others in S.L.P(Civil) No.9592 of 2012 and it was entertained and converted as C.A.No.8458 of 2014 and the said civil appeal was allowed vide judgment dated 04.09.2014, reported in 2015 (2) SCC 121 : 2015-1-L.W. 289 (H.A.Martin and others v. Moses Thambi Pillai and others).
40. The Honourable Supreme Court, after tracing out the scheme of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, framed the following question for consideration:
Whether a Society such as TELC is required to be treated as Society registered under the Act (1975 Act) in view of the operation of Section 53?
41. In paragraph Nos.23 and 24 of the said decision, it has been observed as follows:
23. We are of the opinion that such a construction is not called for in view of the scheme of the Act and more particularly scheme of Section 4 of the Act. We have already noticed that Section 4(3) expressly excludes the operation of Section 4(1) and 4(2) thereby relieving both the classes of Societies - the Societies formed after coming into the existence of the 1975 Act and the Societies which were in existence but not registered under any law prior to the commencement of the 1975 Act - covered by Section 4(1) and 4(2) which have for their object the promotion of religion. In our opinion, the expression Societies (registered under the 1860 Act) occurring in Section 53 must be understood to mean only those Societies which do not fall under the exemption granted under Section 4(3) of the Act. Otherwise the operation of the Act would result in such an absurd situation where Societies coming into existence after the commencement of the Act or unregistered Societies existing on the date of the commencement of the Act are not obliged to register and comply with the discipline of the Act but the existing registered Societies on the date of commencement of the Act are obliged to comply with the regulatory conditions of the Act, notwithstanding the fact that the activity of all the abovementioned three classes of the Societies is to promote religion. Unless the expression Societies occurring under Section 53 of the Act is understood to mean Societies other than those whose object is promotion of religion, atheletics or sports, the Act would result in creation of two classes of Societies having the same object, but one class is subjected to the discipline of the Act and the other class exempted from it - all other things being equal except the accident of an existing Society on the date of the Act also happens to be a Society registered under the 1860 Act. Such an interpretation which would be in violation of Article 14 is certainly required to be avoided. There can neither be any reasonable basis for such classification nor any purpose to be achieved by such classification. Therefore, the Act is not applicable to TELC at all.
24. Looked at in the abovementioned background of the statutory scheme, we are of the opinion that the entire litigation between the parties herein is without any basis in law. It resulted in wastage of time of the judiciary as well as the administration. Apparently neither of the parties nor the administration had the time to examine or inclination to examine the scheme of the 1975 Act. We are sorry to say, even the judiciary (Bar & Bench) did not do any better.
42. The Honourable Supreme Court, after arriving at a decision that the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, has no application to TELC, had set aside the judgment made in W.A.No.481 of 2011 and also observed that the second respondent therein, if he still has any legally tenable grievance, de hors the 1975 Act, is free to pursue such remedy available to him under the law.
43. In the light of the above cited decision of the Honourable Supreme Court, the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, have no application to TELC, as a result of which, the following question arises for consideration in these Letters Patent Appeals:
In the light of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in H.A.Martin and others v. Moses Thambi Pillai and others reported in 2015 (2) SCC 121 : 2015-1-L.W. 289, what is the effect of the amended bye-laws in respect of the affairs of TELC?
44. It is also now relevant to point out that the term of Rev.S.Edwin Jayakumar also came to an end on 02.05.2016.
45. These Letters Patent Appeals as well as the Contempt Petition came to be posted before various Division Benches of this Court and lastly, before us (M.Sathyanarayanan,J. and T.Raja,J) and, in the interregnum, applications/petitions have been taken up to remove the Judge-Administrator alleging that he is biased towards Dr.E.D.Charles and by stating that the Judge-Administrator had initially filed a Memo withdrawing himself from the said position, but, later on, he agreed to continue in the interest and welfare of the Institution.
46. Rt.Rev.Dr.H.A.Martin continued to occupy the Tranquebar House and therefore, the Judge-Administrator had issued notice calling upon him to vacate the same and hand over all the records and in that regard, applications/petitions were filed to desist the learned Judge-Administrator from doing so and since T.Raja,J. had sitting in the Madurai Bench of this Court, the said applications were listed as Specially Ordered Cases before the Division Bench consisting M.Sathyanarayanan,J. and Pushpa Sathyanarayana,J. and, on filing of the affidavit of undertaking in C.M.P.No.10448 of 2016 in L.P.A.No.3 of 2015, time was granted to vacate and deliver the possession of the Tranquebar House as well as the records. The Division Bench consisting M.Sathyanarayanan,J. and T.Raja,J. had also passed orders on 29.04.2016 and 25.07.2016 respectively, granting liberty to the Judge-Administrator to take decision of his own depending upon the factual situations and, as on today, the learned Judge-Administrator is fully in complete in-charge of the entire administration and affairs of TELC.
47. In the light of the subsequent development in the form of the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in H.A.Martin and others v. Moses Thambi Pillai and others reported in 2015 (2) SCC 121 : 2015-1-L.W. 289, an incidental question also arises for consideration in these Letters Patent Appeals, viz., whether the next Triennium Synod is to be conducted in accordance with the old bye-laws/Rules or amended bye-laws/Rules?
48. This Court, pending disposal of these appeals, passed series of orders in M.P.No.3 of 2015 in L.P.A.No.5 of 2015 which was filed for an order of ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents 1 and 2 and their agents from conducting the Annual Synod General Body meeting on 28.11.2015. This Court also passed an order that the decision taken in the said meeting on 28.11.2015 would not be implemented without specific orders of this Court.
49. In M.P.No.1 of 2015 in L.P.A.No.3 of 2015, this Court, vide order, dated 07.05.2015, had observed that the Institution should function regularly, otherwise, it would be detrimental to the rights of the Members of the Church and others and therefore, directed both the parties to maintain status quo prevailing as on the date of the order, dated 07.05.2015, and alleging disobedience of the said order, Contempt Petition No.1531 of 2015 is filed, stating among other things that Dr.E.D.Charles, Secretary of TELC, convened a Pastoral Conference as well as Annual Convention.
50. Rt.Rev.Dr.H.A.Martin the appellant in L.P.A.No.3 of 2015 has filed C.M.P.No.10448 of 2016 praying for an order of ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents, namely, Dr.E.D.Charles and 16 others from interfering with the peaceful possession of Tranquebar House pending disposal of the appeal. The very same appellant also filed C.M.P.No.10449 of 2016 praying for removal of the Judge-Administrator, namely, Mr.Justice J.Kanagaraj (Retired Judge of High Court, Madras). The said applications were filed on the ground that the Judge-Administrator directed him to hand over the records and vacate the Tranquebar House on expiry of his term as President/Bishop.
51. As already pointed out, these appeals and the connected matters were listed before the Division Bench consisting of M.Sathyanarayanan,J. and T.Raja,J, and since T.Raja,J. was deputed to Madurai Bench of this Court, the Registry was moved and after obtaining appropriate orders from the Honourable the Chief Justice, the said two applications were listed before the Division Bench consisting of M.Sathyanarayanan,J. and Pushpa Sathyanarayana,J.
52. This Court, vide order dated 01.07.2016, by taking note of the fact that the appellant in L.P.A.No.3 of 2015 was found guilty of contempt of Court by the learned Single Judge, ofcourse, without imposition of punishment and that the said order was confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment reported in 2014-1-L.W. 906 (cited supra), directed him to file an undertaking as to the handing over/surrender of all the original documents in connection with the affairs of TELC and the vehicle as well as the possession of Tranquebar House on or before 29.08.2016.
53. In the meanwhile, the Judge-Administrator also filed a Memo, praying for his discharge from the duties and responsibilities in TELC. In that regard, it must be stated that already, way back in 2008, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the elections conducted then should be under the supervision of the learned Judge Administrator. Hence, we also now requested him to continue the job assigned, until further orders.
54. The appellant in L.P.A.No.3 of 2015 also filed an affidavit on 22.07.2016 and, this Court, vide order dated 22.07.2016, directed him to hand over the Tranquebar House as well as the original documents of title enumerated in paragraph 3 of his affidavit, dated 22.07.2016, to the learned Judge-Administrator on or before 31.07.2016 and directed the listing of the matter on 01.08.2016 for reporting compliance.
55. Subsequently, this Court, vide order dated 01.08.2016, granted time till 06.08.2016 and directed the listing of the matter on 10.08.2016 and therefore, by virtue of the interim order, the appellant in L.P.A.No.3 of 2015 could remain in possession of the Tranquebar House till 10.08.2016 and thereafter, the appellant in L.P.A.No.3 of 2015 filed an affidavit, dated 30.07.2016, undertaking to vacate the Tranquebar House and surrender the records as well as documents and accordingly, time was granted till 30.09.2016 to hand over possession of the Tranquebar House.
56. In L.P.A.No.5 of 2015, Rev.M.S.Arivannal the 5th respondent, filed C.M.P.No.3603 of 2016 praying for appointment of a retired Judge of this Court as Administrator to ensure the holding of elections for the Tranquebar House for the Triennium Synod 2016-2019 in an apparent and proper manner and, according to him, the Triennium period of the present Church Council was to end on 02.05.2016 and, after expiry, it cannot function and, as a consequence, the administration of TELC will get paralised, causing severe hardships to various beneficiaries.
57. The very same petitioner filed C.M.P.No.3604 of 2016 praying for a direction to the second respondent to issue Election Notification for the Triennium 2016-2019 as per the time schedule approved by this Court.
58. The appellant in L.P.A.No.5 of 2015, has filed M.P.No.3 of 2015, in which, certain interim orders of status quo were passed. M.P.No.4 of 2015 was filed by one Jeyamani and S.Arokiadoss, third parties to the proceedings, to implead themselves as respondents 19 and 20 in L.P.A.No.5 of 2015 filed by A.Mehar Antony. Similarly, Rev.J.Chelladurai and D.Wilfred Daniel, third parties to the proceedings, filed C.M.P.No.13502 of 2016 to implead themselves as respondents 19 and 20.
59. Since the endeavour of the parties, who are sought to be impleaded, as to the proper functioning of the TELC, has been taken care of by the rival parties in these Letters Patent Appeals, their impleadment is not necessary and therefore, M.P.No.4 of 2015 and C.M.P.No.13502 of 2016 in L.P.A.No.5 of 2015 deserve dismissal.
60. M.P.No.3 of 2015 was filed by the appellant in L.P.A.No.5 of 2015 praying for interim injunction, restraining the respondents 1 and 2 and their agents from conducting the Annual Synod General Body meeting on 28.11.2015 and, pursuant to the interim order, Rt.Rev.S.Edwin Jayakumar and the other office bearers have not taken charge and the entire affairs are being administered by the Judge-Administrator and, as already pointed out, their term of office also came to an end on 02.05.2016 and hence, no further orders are necessary in that application and therefore, M.P.No.3 of 2015 in L.P.A.No.5 of 2015 deserves to be closed.
61. The prayer made in C.M.P.Nos.3603 and 3604 of 2016 for conducting election to the Triennium Synod 2016-2019 would be taken care in the form of disposal of the Letters Patent Appeals and therefore, no further orders are necessary and hence, C.M.P.Nos.3603 and 3604 of 2016 are liable to be closed.
62. Heard the submissions of Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.R.Jayaprakash, learned Counsel for the appellant in L.P.A.No.3 of 2015/third respondent in L.P.A.No.5 of 2015 and Mr.P.H.Aravindh Pandian, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.S.D.S.Philip, learned Counsel for the 13th respondent in L.P.A.No.3 of 2015/appellant in L.P.A.No.5 of 2015.
63. The primordial submission made on behalf of the appellants in these appeals is that the order of remand, dated 08.10.2014, made in L.P.A.No.3 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014, is not restricted to any specific issue and, in fact, paragraph No.3 of the order makes it clear that both the parties had agreed that the learned Single Judge may have a re-look on the issue arising from the impugned order though by way of a clarification in the contempt proceedings and also makes it clear that, in the light of the judgment rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court reported in 2015 (2) SCC 121 : 2015-1-L.W.289 (cited supra), they have a right to urge their respective submissions and, as such, the learned Judge ought to have gone into the issue as to whether the old Rules/Bye-laws or the new Rules/amended Bye-laws, shall govern the administration and affairs of the TELC, but, he merely reiterated his earlier order, dated 27.08.2014, passed in Sub Application No.420 of 2014 in Contempt Petition No.2715 of 2013 and, by going beyond the contempt jurisdiction, the learned Judge proceeded to direct Rev.S.Edwin Jayakumar, who was yet to be consecrated as Bishop, to continue and further proceeded to hold that since Rev.S.Edwin Jayakumar was already consecrated as Bishop on 31.08.2014, the respondents 1 and 12 therein/appellants in these appeals as well as other respondents cannot attempt to unseat him today by merely opposing these applications without even challenging the amendment to the Bye-laws in the appropriate Civil Court, namely, the Principal District Court, Tiruchirappalli.
64. It is further contended that the new Rules/amended Bye-laws are not in consistence with Rules 151 and 152 of the Church Rules, as the amendments should be made by two-thirds majority of two consecutive Synod, of which, one shall be ordinary and therefore, the amendments of the year 2007, 2010 and 2013 are without jurisdiction as no Triennium Synod ever passed/approved the said amendments.
65. It is the further submission of the respective learned Senior Counsels appearing for the appellants that the interim orders, dated 12.11.2010, passed in I.A.Nos.1119 and 1120 of 2010, which are the subject-matter of challenge in C.R.P.(MD)Nos.2385 and 2386 of 2010 and arising out of O.S.No.1001 of 2010 on the file of the Sub Court, Tiruchirappalli, and later on, transferred to the file of the II Additional District Court, Tiruchirappalli, and numbered as O.S.No.94 of 2012, have got merged with the said suit for the reason that it was withdrawn on 25.11.2013, granting liberty to the plaintiffs therein, namely, TELC, represented by Dr.E.D.Charles and 8 others to file a fresh suit with fresh cause of action, if necessity arises in future and, as such, the amended Bye-laws cannot be pressed into service to run the affairs of the TELC and the election process for the next Triennium Synod 2016-2019 is to be initiated only in accordance with the old Rules/Bye-laws.
66. It is also contended by the learned Senior Counsels appearing for the appellants that, in the light of the judgment rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court 2015 (2) SCC 121 : 2015-1-L.W.289 (cited supra), all the earlier orders, which include the one holding the appellant in L.P.A.No.3 of 2015 as guilty of contempt, have been set at naught and therefore, the appellant in L.P.A.No.3 of 2015 is competent and eligible as per the old Rules/Bye-laws to conduct the election process for constituting the Triennium Synod and elect a new Church Council and Bishop for the TELC or in the alternative, a Commissioner, preferably, a retired Judge of this Court other than the present Judge-Administrator may be appointed as an Observer in the presence of the parties to conduct the said election.
67. Mr.S.K.Mani, learned Counsel for the 12th respondent in L.P.A.No.3 of 2015/13th respondent in L.P.A.No.5 of 2015 also made similar submissions.
68. The learned Senior Counsels appearing for the appellants as well as the learned Counsel for the 12th respondent in L.P.A.No.3 of 2015/13th respondent in L.P.A.No.5 of 2015, in support of their submissions, placed reliance upon the following decisions:
(i) Jhareswar Prasad Paul and another v. Tarak Nath Ganguly and others reported in (2002) 5 Supreme Court Cases 352;
(ii) V.M.Manohar Prasad v. N.Ratnam Raju and another reported in (2004) 13 Supreme Court Cases 610;
(iii) Sudhir Vasudeva v.M.George Ravishekaran reported in (2014) 3 Supreme Court Cases 373;
(iv) Prasanna Venkatesa v. Srinivasa reported in AIR 1931 Madras 12;
(v) Govt. of A.P and another v. B.Satyanarayana Rao reported in (2000) 4 Supreme Court Cases 262;
(vi) Nirmal Jeet Kaur v. State of M.P. and another reported in (2004) 7 Supreme Court Cases 558;
(vii) Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania reported in (2010) 9 Supreme Court Cases 437;
(viii) Kanwar Singh Saini v. High Court of Delhi reported in (2012) 4 Supreme Court Cases 307; and
(ix) K.P.Manu v. Chairman, Scrutiny Committee for Verification of Community Certificate reported in (2015) 4 Supreme Court Cases 1.
69. Per contra, Mr.G.Masilamani, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.S.Manisundara Gopal, learned Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 in these appeals as well as the respondent in the contempt petition, has drawn the attention of this Court to the minutes of the Extraordinary General Body meeting dated 27.02.2013 and would submit that, admittedly, the appellant in L.P.A.No.3 of 2015 had participated in the said meeting and agreed to the proposed amended bye-laws and admittedly, at that time, the old Rules/Bye-laws were not in tune with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 and the Rules framed thereunder and, as such, a show cause notice was issued by the District Registrar of Societies, Tiruchirappalli, as to the appointment of a Special Officer under Section 34-A of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 and, as such, there was a compelling necessity to amend the Bye-laws and accordingly, it was amended and the election was also held, in which, Rev.S.Edwin Jayakumar was elected as the President/Bishop and admittedly, no challenge was made to the said proceedings.
70. It is the further submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 in the appeals as well as the respondent in the contempt petition that the affidavit of the Judge-Administrator, dated 07.05.2013, filed in C.R.P.(MD)Nos.2385 and 2386 of 2010 would also indicate the said fact of participation of the appellant in L.P.A.No.3 of 2015 and for the Triennium Synod 2013-2016, Dr.E.D.Charles and 8 others were elected and they were also installed as Church Council Members and, as such, it is not open to the appellants now to contend otherwise, in the light of the verdict of the Honourable Supreme Court, reported in 2015 (2) SCC 121 : 2015-1-L.W.289 (cited supra).
71. It is also contended that, admittedly, the appellant in L.P.A.No.3 of 2015 was held guilty of contempt which was also confirmed in the appeal [reported in 2014-1-L.W. 906] and unless and until, he purges out of contempt, it is not open for him to prosecute the appeal.
72. It is the further submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 that, admittedly, the appellant in L.P.A.No.3 of 2015 had completed his tenure on 13/14.01.2014 and, even as per the old Rules/Bye-laws, he cannot continue as the Bishop and, as such, he cannot insist that under his leadership, a fresh election is to be conducted.
73. Lastly, it is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2/the respondent in the contempt petition that, by virtue of the order of status quo, a new set of office bearers were not in a position to effectively function and, as such, till the election for the Triennium Synod 2016-2019 takes place in terms of the new Rules/amended Bye-laws under the supervision of the present Judge-Administrator, they have to continue. The learned Senior Counsel also pointed out that the appellant in L.P.A.No.3 of 2015 was also guilty of alienating very many properties of TELC to the persons of his choice and also made a number of appointments for extraneous considerations and, as such, he cannot continue as the Bishop. He further urged that the interim order of status quo passed in M.P.No.1 of 2015 in L.P.A.No.3 of 2015, dated 07.05.2015, have not been violated and therefore, prays for dismissal of the Letters Patent Appeals as well as the contempt petition with exemplary costs.
74. All the other respective learned Counsels for the other parties also made more or less similar submissions.
75. In response to the said submission, the respective learned Senior Counsels appearing for the appellants would urge that, since the term of the present office bearers also came to an end on 02.05.2016, in the light of the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in 2015 (2) SCC 121 : 2015-1-L.W.289 (cited supra), a General Body may be convened and it's views may be ascertained as to whether the election is to be conducted either in terms of the old Rules/Bye-laws or new Rules/amended Bye-laws.
76. However, Mr.G.Masilamani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 in the appeals/respondent in the contempt petition, reiterated that the election for the Triennium Synod 2016-2019 is to be conducted only in accordance with the new Rules/amended Bye-laws under the supervision of the present Judge-Administrator, namely, Mr.J.Kanagaraj, J. (Retired Judge of High Court, Madras).
77. We have paid our best attention and anxious consideration to the rival submissions and also perused the materials placed before us.
78. In our considered opinion, the judgment rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court in 2015 (2) SCC 121 : 2015-1-L.W.289 (cited supra), has altered the entire scenario for the reason that the Honourable Supreme Court, in paragraph No.21 of the above cited decision, held that the obligation to compulsorily register (Societies) arising either under Section 4(1) or Section 4(2) does not extend to Societies whose object is the promotion of religion and also, in the light of Section 4(3), which expressly excludes the Societies established with the object of promoting either religion or atheletics or sports. In paragraph No.22 of the said judgment, the Honourable Supreme Court posed the question, whether a Society, such as TELC, is required to be treated as Society registered under the Act (1975 Act) in view of the operation of Section 53 and held that "unless the expression "Societies" occurring under Section 53 of the Act is understood to mean Societies other than those whose object is promotion of religion, atheletics or sports, the Act would result in creation of two classes of Societies having the same object, but one class is subjected to the discipline of the Act and the other class exempted from it all other things being equal except the accident of an existing Society on the date of the Act also happens to be a Society registered under the 1860 Act. Such an interpretation would be in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the Honourable Supreme Court held that the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, is not applicable to TELC.
79. It is also very pertinent to note and point out that the Honourable Supreme Court, in paragraph 24, also made some scathing observations, as under:
24. Looked at in the abovementioned background of the statutory scheme, we are of the opinion that the entire litigation between the parties herein is without any basis in law. It resulted in wastage of time of the judiciary as well as the administration. Apparently neither of the parties nor the administration had the time to examine or inclination to examine the scheme of the 1975 Act. We are sorry to say, even the judiciary (Bar & Bench) did not do any better. (emphasis supplied.)
80. In the light of the findings rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court in the above cited judgment, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is not necessary to render findings on the points urged by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the parties and it is for the General Body to decide and approve as to whether the old Rules/Bye-laws or the new Rules/amended Bye-laws have to be followed for conducting the election for the Triennium Synod 2016-2019.
81. It is also brought to the knowledge of this Court that, after the withdrawal of the suit in O.S.No.94 of 2012, on 25.11.2013, with liberty granted to the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit in the event of necessity arises in future, one Jeyamani and S.Arokiadoss the petitioners in M.P.No.4 of 2015 in L.P.A.No.5 of 2015, had filed O.S.No.177 of 2014 on the file of the District Munsif, Tiruchirappalli, for the following reliefs:
(a) for declaration to declare that the defendants 1 to 11 are not legally entitled to function as the Office Bearers of the Church and Church Council as they had not been elected in strict adherence of TELC Rules and for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 11 from functioning their respective offices and discharging their duties in any manner or whatsoever.
(b) for declaration to declare that the order passed in the earlier proceedings including the upholding the 42nd Triennial Synod convened on 2-4, May 2013 are not binding TELC Congregation in view of the Judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 4.9.2014 in Civil Appeal No.8458/2014 and for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 11 from functioning in the office of the Church Council and Board or in any other manner or whatsoever.
(c) for declaration to declare that the Circular issued by the 4th defendant is null and void as the defendants 1 to 9 are not entitled to discharge any obligations or duties as duly elected Office Bearers for the Term 2013-2016 and for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 9 from administering the Ordinations and commissioning proposed to be conducted on 19.9.2014 or any date thereafter or in any manner or whatsoever.
82. The said suit in O.S.No.177 of 2014 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruchirappalli, is not maintainable as any suit concerning the administration and affairs of the TELC is to be filed on the file of the District Court/II Additional District Court, Tiruchirappalli and also it is not clear from the affidavit filed in support of M.P.No.4 of 2015 as to whether the said suit was transferred to the file of the II Additional District Court, Tiruchirappalli, or not and it appears that the said suit is still pending.
83. Rule 117 of the old Rules/Bye-laws speaks about composition of Church Council and it shall consist of the President/Bishop and 8 other members elected by the Triennial Synod. Of the 8 members, 3 shall be clergymen and 5 shall be laymen.
84. Rule 151 speaks about the authority of the Synod and it is the main legislating body of the Church and it has sovereign authority over the administration and doctrinal matters of the Church, governed in general only by Documents A and B. Further, questions appertaining to doctrine, Church Service and books authorised for use at public worship shall come to the Synod through the Pastoral Conference and its decisions must have the support of two-thirds majority, to be brought into effect.
85. Rule 152 says that alterations in the Constitution (Document A) require two-thirds majority at two consecutive sessions of the Synod of which at least one shall be ordinary and for alterations in Document B, a resolution passed by simple majority in one session of the Synod is sufficient and according to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, while effecting amendments to the old Rules/Bye-laws, the procedure contemplated under Rule 152 have not been followed.
86. Chapter VI of the old Rules/Bye-laws deals with Synod Continuation Committee (SCC) and Rule 153 pertaining to composition of SCC provides that the Members of the said committee which is the General Body of the TELC, shall be (a) Ex-officio --(1) The Bishop (President); (2) The members of the Church Council; (3) The Treasurer of the Church Council, if he is not a member of the Church Council; (4) The Chairman, EB; (5) The District Chairmen and Secretaries of the DE; (6) TELC Pastors in active service, ..., (b) Elected Lay Delegates .... and (c) Nominated Members......
87. Rule 155 speaks about Notice and Agenda. Rule 160 speaks of functions of the SCC and Rule 161 speaks of election procedure and tenure of office of the Bishop.
88. It is relevant to extract hereunder Rules 160 and 161:
160. FUNCTIONS OF THE SCC:
Functions of the SCC are:
1.To deal with all administrative and legislative matters of the Church, except doctrinal matters and change in the Constitution which can be dealt with only by the Synod (Cf. Rule No.151).
2.To frame rules for the administration of the TELC and to amend them.
3.To pass the annual accounts and budget.
4.To appoint Auditors to audit the accounts, a) of the TELC, b) of the Special Boards, Institutions, Pastorates, etc., and also c) of the Special Funds under its control.
5.To prescribe the quota of contributions from the Pastorates and other Institutions of the Church (as may be determined by the SCC) to the Central Treasury or for any Special Fund.
6.To give advice on subjects referred to it by the CC.
7.To elect members for the Arbitration Board every triennium (Cf. Rule No.187).
8.To elect members of the CC, when there are vacancies.
9.To give a panel of three names to the Synod, when there is a vacancy in the office of the Bishop of Tranquebar.
10.To consider such subjects as have been referred to it by the Synod.
11.To give to the CC such advice as may be needed for the welfare of the Church.
12.When a Synod's resolution is delayed and brought for reconsideration at the SCC, it shall have the right to delay the resolution till the next Synod by two-thirds' majority of votes of the members present.
Note: If in the opinion of the CC any resolution of the SCC should not be enforced, they can delay action on it, and report to the next S.C.C. If the resolution is reiterated, it shall come into force immediately.
13.To frame rules for the educational work of the TELC and to amend them.
14.To appoint a Church Rules Committee and a Finance Committee for the triennium.
15.To ensure that all the resolutions of the Synod and the SCC are implemented. Rule 161. ELECTION PROCEDURE AND TENURE OF OFFICE OF THE BISHOP.
When there is a vacancy in the office of the Bishop of Tranquebar the following procedure for the election of the Bishop shall be followed.
(a) The SCC shall propose a panel of three ordained ministers of the TELC elected by absolute majority, and the Synod shall elect by an absolute majority one of the three as the Bishop of Tranquebar.
(b) The persons elected to the panel shall be not less than 50 years on the date of election to the panel.
(c) The Bishop shall retire on the 14th of January, after he has completed 65 years of age or ten years of service as Bishop, which ever is earlier. He shall not be given extension of service as Bishop beyond the period mentioned above.
(d) The Church Council shall arrange for voting on the panel by the Synod, within six months from the date of the SCC, and for his Consecration and installation by a Lutheran Bishop within 6 months of the date of his election by the Synod. (Effective for and from the election of the IX Bishop.).
89. As already pointed out, in pursuance of the communication of the District Registrar of Societies to amend certain old Rules/Bye-laws in tune with the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 and the Rules framed thereunder, the amendments have been brought forth.
90. Synod/Extraordinary General Body Notification, dated 04.02.2013, was issued by Dr.E.D.Charles, Secretary, Church Council, to hold the General Body Meeting on 21.02.2013 with regard to consideration of G.O.Ms.No.1, Commercial Taxes and Registration (M1) Department, dated 03.01.2013 and any other subject with the permission of the Chair. Accordingly, the said meeting was held on that date and the minutes of the same are available at page 170 of Volume-I(a) of the typed set of documents in L.P.A.Nos.3 and 5 of 2015.
91. A careful scrutiny and a perusal of the minutes of the said meeting would indicate that the Notification dated 04.02.2013 for convening the said meeting was signed by Rt.Rev.Dr.H.A.Martin - the appellant in L.P.A.No.3 of 2015, Dr.E.D.Charles, the respondents 1 and 2 in L.P.A.Nos.3 and 5 of 2015 as well as the Judge-Administrator. It was noted in the minutes that the tenure of the appellant in L.P.A.No.3 of 2015, namely, Rt.Rev.Dr.H.A.Martin, as Bishop was already over by 13.01.2012 and despite that, he continued in the said office as President/Bishop till 13/14.01.2014 without any proper election and, in the election conducted on 27.02.2013, Rev.R.Albert Sockerna was polled 359 votes and the appellant in L.P.A.No.3 of 2015 was polled 20 votes and therefore, Rev.R.Albter Sockerna was declared as Interim President of TELC and he also took charge and regarding Sections 25(2), 25(3) and 26, a suggestion was made to request the Church Council to approach the Government, seeking exemption. The said minutes would further read that, after putting into deliberations, resolutions were unanimously passed and the same have already been extracted in paragraph 18 of this judgment.
92. One of the subjects approved is to accept the draft Bye-laws and authorise the Venerable Church Council Secretary to submit the same to the District Registrar, Tiruchirappalli, for getting approval and accordingly, the second respondent in L.P.A.No.3 of 2015, in his capacity as Secretary, had forwarded the same to the District Registrar on 05.03.2013 seeking approval of the bye-laws and, in turn, the District Registrar had sent a communication, dated 22.03.2013, under R.No.986/B3/2010, the contents of which, have already been extracted in paragraph 20 of this judgment, and found that the amendments submitted are against Bye-law 26 and also suggested other amendments and, after rectifying the same, the second respondent herein, once again, had sent a communication, dated 03.04.2013, to the said official for appropriate action and it is not brought to the knowledge of this Court as to whether the District Registrar of Societies, Tiruchirappalli, had approved the amendments or not?
93. It is not clear as to whether subsequent to the communication of the second respondent dated 03.04.2013 addressed to the District Registrar of Societies, as to the approval of the said amendments, the same has been considered or not? The typed set of documents in Volume-I(a) filed by the respondents 1 and 2 in L.P.A.Nos.3 and 5 of 2015, does not contain any document as to the said approval. However, the fact remains that a new set of office bearers were elected and after the election was over, the Judge-Administrator also sent a communication, dated 03.05.2013, to the District Registrar of Societies, Tiruchirappalli, as to the election of new set of office bearers for the Triennium Synod 2013-2016 in the General Body meeting held on 02.05.2013, in which, Rev.S.Edwin Jayakumar was elected as President of TELC and Dr.E.D.Charles was elected as Secretary and other 8 office bearers and the affidavit dated 07.06.2013 was also filed to that effect in C.R.P.(MD)Nos.2385 and 2386 of 2010, etc., and, as already pointed out, their term also came to an end on 02.05.2016.
94. As per the proposed amended bye-laws, the General Body means the sovereign and legislative body consisting of elected representatives from pastorates and all the ordained pastors in TELC. It further says that Synod is the General Body of TELC Society. It is the main legislative body of the Church having sovereign authority over the administration and doctrinal matters of the Church. Questions pertaining to doctrine, Church Order of Service and books authorised for use at public worship shall come to the Synod on the recommendation of the Pastoral Conference with approval of the CC and its decisions must have 2/3rds majority to be brought into effect.
95. Chapter V deals with the General Body of the Society and it is main legislative body of the Church Society having sovereign authority over the administration and doctrinal matters of the Church Society and the composition shall be the President/Bishop; the Secretary and other members of the Executive Committee; one member each elected among themselves from the TELC Boards of Management of the Institutions of special character; and TELC pastors in active service including those under the Boards of Management of the institutions of special characters, Gurukul, U.T.C., and T.T.S.
96. Rule 9 says that the General Body shall ordinarily be held annually and, in case of necessity, the Executive Committee may summon a Special General Body and the Triennial General Body shall be called for once in three years to elect the members of the Executive Committee and the General Body shall deal with administrative and legislative matters of the church, including doctrinal matters.
97. Rules 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 speak about the intimation regarding the General Body meeting; Sending of subjects for the General Body; Agenda for the General Body; Sending of programme etc; and Sending of a report regarding the previous year.
98. Rule 24 of the amended bye-laws deals with the functions of the General Body and Rule 25 speaks about the Extraordinary General Body meeting and it is relevant to extract the same hereunder:
24) FUNCTIONS OF THE GENERAL BODY:
Functions of the General Body are:
a. To deal with all administrative and legislative matters of the Church Society, as also doctrinal matters.
b. To frame rules for the administration of the T.E.L.C and to amend them.
c. To pass the annual accounts and budget.
d. To appoint Auditors to audit the accounts (a) of the T.E.L.C, (b) of the Special Boards, Institutions, Pastorates, etc., and also ) of the Special Funds under its control.
e. To prescribe the quota of contribution from the Pastorates and other Institutions of the Church Society to the Central Treasury or for any special Fund.
f. To give advice on subjects referred to it by the Executive Committee.
g. To elect members for the Arbitration Board for three years.
h. To elect members of the Executive Committee once in three years and also when there are vacancies.
i. To give to the Executive Committee such advice as may be needed for the welfare of the Church Society.
j. To frame rules for the educational work of the T.E.L.C and to amend them.
k. To appoint a Church Society Rules Revision Committee and Finance Committee for three years.
l. To ensure that all the resolutions of the General Body are implemented. 25) EXTRAORDINARY GENERAL BODY MEETING:
a) The Church Council may convene extra-ordinary General body meetings in accordance with Section 28 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 on a requisition of 1/3 of the total members of General body in writing to the President/Bishop (or) Secretary Executive Committee.
b) Such meeting shall be called for within 30 days from the receipt of their requisition.
c) If an extra-ordinary General Body meeting is not called for in accordance with such requisition, the requisiteness shall have the power to call for such meeting themselves. Such meeting shall be conducted only in church premises.
d) No extra-ordinary General Body meeting shall be deemed to have been duly called if the members of the society have not been given such notice thereof as is required by the sub-sections 2 and 3 of Section 26 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975.
99. Rule 24(a) says that the functions of the General Body are to deal with all administrative and legislative matters of the Church Society, as also doctrinal matters. Rule 24(b) says that it is for the General Body to frame rules for the administration of the TELC and to amend them.
100. As per Rule 160 of the old Rules/Bye-laws, the functions of the Synod Continuation Committee, among other things, are to deal with all administrative and legislative matters of the Church, except doctrinal matters and change in the Constitution which can be dealt with only by the Synod and to frame rules for the administration of the TELC and to amend them.
101. As per Rule 151 of the old Rules/Bye-laws, the Synod is the main legislating body of the Church and it has sovereign authority over the administration and doctrinal matters of the Church and its decisions must have the support of two-thirds majority. Whereas, as per the new Rules/amended Bye-laws, the authority of the General Body shall be three-fourths majority [Rule/Bye-law 6(V)]
102. It is also relevant to note that there is no provision in the old rules/bye-laws as to the convening of the Extraordinary General Body meeting, whereas the new Rule/amended Bye-law No.25 provides for convening the Extraordinary General Body meeting.
103. This Court in the earlier paragraphs observed that after the appellant in L.P.A.No.3 of 2015 did not deny his participation in the Extraordinary General Body meeting held on 27.02.2013, wherein, the approval for the new Rules/amended Bye-laws has been given and the election was also held, in which, he lost and a new set of office bearers under the leadership of Rev.S.Edwin Jayakumar were elected and no challenge was made by him. However, the petitioners in M.P.No.4 of 2015 in L.P.A.No.5 of 2015, namely, one Jeyamani and S.Arokiadoss had filed O.S.No.177 of 2014 on the file of the District Munsif, Tiruchirappalli, making a challenge to the said proceedings and other consequential reliefs and the fate of it is not disclosed in their affidavit filed in support of M.P.No.4 of 2015 in L.P.A.No.5 of 2015.
104. The Honourable Supreme Court, though given a finding that the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, is not applicable to the TELC at all, while allowing the appeal, has granted liberty to the second respondent, de hors the said Act, to pursue such a remedy under the law.
105. In pursuance of the series of orders passed by this Court, the Judge-Administrator is in full-in-charge of the administration and affairs of the TELC and the term of new set of office bearers came to an end on 02.05.2016.
106. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants would contend that, while passing the impugned order, the learned Judge has gone beyond the scope of contempt proceedings and placed reliance upon the above cited judgments. However, it is to be pointed out at this juncture that, in the light of the order of remand dated 08.10.2014 in L.P.A.No.3 of 2014, the learned Judge had re-looked on the issue in the light of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court which came into being after the order dated 27.08.2014 in Sub Application No.420 of 2014 in Contempt Petition No.2715 of 2013.
107. The grievance now expressed by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants is as to the result portion in paragraph 21 of the impugned order dated 22.04.2015 and at that time, the term of the new set of office bearers got expired; however, the learned Judge ought to have taken note of the term of expiry on 02.05.2016 and restricted their term, at least, to that date, but it has not been done so and the impugned order proceeds as if they can continue until further orders till the challenge is made to the new rules/amended bye-laws before the Principal District Court, Tiruchirappalli.
108. In the considered opinion of this Court, to that extent, the said order is unsustainable.
109. Be that as it may, the Judge-Administrator has taken the administration and affairs of the TELC and continues to exercise and discharge his functions as on today and it is also very pertinent to point out at this juncture that the suit in O.S.No.177 of 2014 on the file of the District Munsif, Tiruchirappalli, filed by the petitioners in M.P.No.4 of 2015 in L.P.A.No.5 of 2015, is said to be pending and it is not made clear by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants as to whether the said suit has been transferred to the file of the Court having competent jurisdiction or not.
110. This Court, in order to solve the issue as to the subsequent development in the form of the Honourable Supreme Court's decision reported in 2015 (2) SCC 121 : 2015-1-L.W. 289 (cited supra), is of the view that the Extraordinary General Body meeting is to be convened by the Judge-Administrator, in accordance with the new Rules/amended Bye-laws, with the sole agenda as to "whether the General Body is of the majority opinion to run the affairs of the TELC in accordance with the old Rules/Bye-laws or new Rules/amended Bye-laws?". This Court is constrained to direct the Judge-Administrator to follow the new Rules/amended Bye-laws insofar as the convening of Extraordinary General Body meeting, for the reason that the old Rules/Bye-laws do not provide for the same.
111. However, it cannot be taken as if this Court has approved the new Rules/amended Bye-laws, especially of the fact that no material has been placed to show that subsequent to the communication of the Judge-Administrator, dated 03.05.2013, the District Registrar of Societies, Tiruchirappalli, had approved the same or not?
112. In the result,
(i) L.P.A.Nos.3 and 5 of 2015 are partly allowed and the direction issued in the impugned order to enable the office bearers to continue in their Pastorates until further orders, is set aside;
(ii) The Judge-Administrator is directed to convene the Extraordinary General Body meeting in accordance with the new Rules/amended Bye-laws, which is available from pages 698 to 738 of Volume-III of the typed set of documents filed by the respondents 1 and 2 in L.P.A.Nos.3 and 5 of 2015 to enable the General Body to decide as to the continuance of the old Rules/Bye-laws or for adoption of new Rules/amended Bye-laws to run the administration and affairs of the TELC;
(iii) The Judge-Administrator, after completion of the Extraordinary General Body meeting, shall file a report before this Court; The Judge-Administrator shall be in-charge and continues to run the administration of the TELC till he is discharged by this Court.
(iv) The interim order, dated 07.05.2015, passed in M.P.No.1 of 2015 in L.P.A.No.3 of 2015 is vacated;
(v) M.P.No.4 of 2015 and C.M.P.No.13502 of 2016 in L.P.A.No.5 of 2015 are dismissed;
(vi) M.P.No.3 of 2015 in L.P.A.No.5 of 2015 is closed;
(vii) C.M.P.Nos.3603 and 3604 of 2016 in L.P.A.No.5 of 2015, are closed;
(viii) Consequently, all the other connected Miscellaneous Petitions in both the Letters Patent Appeals are closed;
(ix) This Court also expresses anguish that the noble objects of a religious Society, namely, TELC, are set at naught on account of the attitude of the noble clergymen and other office bearers and we hope and trust that good sense and sanity will be in place; so that the institution continues to pursue and carry on it's noble activities and religious objects to the welfare of the members of the TELC in general and the institution, in particular; and
(x) Insofar as the Contempt Petition is concerned, since the administration and affairs of the TELC are vested with the Judge-Administrator and this Court has also issued the above directions for convening the Extraordinary General Body meeting with the sole agenda as to the continuance of old Rules/Bye-laws or for adopting new Rules/amended Bye-laws, no orders are necessary in the Contempt Petition and hence, Contempt Petition No.1531 of 2015 is closed. Consequently, the connected Sub Applications are also closed.
Index :No (M.S.N.,J.) (T.R.,J.) Internet :Yes 07.12.2016 rsb/jvm M.SATHYANARAYANAN,J. AND T.RAJA,J. Rsb/jvm COMMON JUDGMENT MADE IN L.P.A.No.3 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015 & C.M.P.Nos.12086, 10448, 10449, 11666 and 11700 of 2016 AND L.P.A.No.5 of 2015 and M.P.Nos.1, 3 and 4 of 2015 and C.M.P.Nos.3603, 3604 and 13502 of 2016 AND Cont.P.No.1531 of 2015 and Sub.A.Nos.527 and 792 of 2015 07.12.2016 LPA.Nos.3 & 5/2015 M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J., and T.RAJA, J., [Order of the Court was made by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.,]
After delivery of the judgment, Mr.G.Masilamani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 in the above appeals, inviting the attention of this Court to the judgment reported in 2011 [1] CTC 395 [Rt.Re.Dr.H.A.Martin ; Samuel Gunaseelaraj Vs. The Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church, rep.by its Secretary, E.D.Charles and others], would submit that in paragraph No.53[m] of the above cited decision, it has been clarified that No suit or other original proceedings, touching upon [i] the elections to the Synod, the Church Council and Bishop/President ; and [ii] the management and administration of TELC, shall henceforth be entertained by any Court other than the Principal District Court, Tiruchirappalli, within whose jurisdiction the registered office of TELC is situate. It shall be open to the Principal District Court, Tiruchirappalli, to assign those cases to any of the additional District Courts or Fast Track Courts. But, this restriction shall not apply to the employees of the various institutions run by TELC, to ventilate their individual grievances, before appropriate Authorities / Courts .
M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J., and T.RAJA, J., AP Therefore, submit that similar direction may also be passed as there are very many litigations pending or likely to emanate in future also.
2 This Court heard the submissions of Mr.R.Jayaprakash, learned counsel appearing for the appellant on the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2.
3 This Court is of the view that the direction issued in paragraph 53[m] of the decision reported in 2011 [1] CTC 395 [cited supra] shall be scrupulously followed.
[M.S.N., J.] [T.R., J.]
07.12.2016
AP
Copy to:-
The Principal District Judge
Tiruchirappalli.
LPA.Nos.3 & 5/2015
http://www.judis.nic.in