Kerala High Court
Fr.Paulose Chittayath vs The District Collector And District on 15 December, 2010
Author: Antony Dominic
Bench: Antony Dominic
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 37327 of 2010(M)
1. FR.PAULOSE CHITTAYATH,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT
... Respondent
2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
3. THE VICAR, ST.MARY'S ORTHODOX
For Petitioner :SRI.ROY CHACKO
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :15/12/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NO. 37327 OF 2010
=====================
Dated this the 15th day of December, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner claims to be the Vicar of St.Mary's Jacobite Syrian Church, Vazhathope, Idukki District. In relation to right of worship in the aforesaid Church, conflicting claims are being raised by two groups, one loyal to the Patriarch and the other loyal to the Catholics of the East.
2. There were law and order problems and on the intervention of the District Collector and other police officials, an understanding as reflected in Ext.P1 was arrived at on 30th of October 2002. This states that the RDO had already taken over the Church and that the key was entrusted to the Village Officer, who will open the Church on all Sundays and to enable the parties to worship in the Church. While this arrangement was continuing, certain incidents have occurred in the Church on 23/7/2010 and 25/7/2010, as a result of which, the District Collector passed Ext. P2 order dated 7/8/2010. This order says that, on the aforesaid days, one section of the members of the church forcefully entered into the Church and conducted worship which led to WPC No. 37327/10 :2 : protest by the other faction. The incident was again repeated on 1/8/2010, as a result of which, the rival faction appears to have conducted worship in a temporary shed in protest.
3. This led to a report made by the Superintendent of Police on 2/8/2010 indicating the possibility of disturbance to the law and order situation. The Collector intervened in the matter, convened a meeting to all parties on 7/8/2010 and despite persuasion, both sides remained adamant, as a result of which, a compromise could not be entered into. This made him pass an order directing that the Church will be kept under lock and key of the Sub Collector.
4. It was at that stage, petitioner made Ext.P3 representation requesting that they be permitted to reopen the Church and the adjacent buildings and conduct rituals and other ceremonies. This was followed by Ext.P4 representation. From Ext.P5 order passed by the District Collector on 4/9/2010, it would appear that further meetings were held and as the parties do not relent, the District Collector ordered that the status quo shall be maintained. At that stage, petitioner approached this Court and filed WP(C) No.27136/10. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P6 judgment rendered on 24th of September 2010 and the WPC No. 37327/10 :3 : District Collector was directed to consider the representation of the petitioner in the light of Ext.P1. Accordingly, the District Collector considered the matter and has now passed Ext.P7 order. Ext.P7 order states that in view of the aforesaid incidents that took place in the Church, there is every possibility of law and order problem and that according to the District Collector, time is not ripe to permit any activity in the Church. On this basis, District Collector directed that the Church will be kept locked. It is challenging this order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
5. According to the petitioner, the conclusions of the District Collector as reflected in Ext.P7 order are without any material. It is also stated that, as a result of Ext.P7, the petitioner and other worshippers are even deprived of the facility that they were enjoying as per Ext.P1.
6. Although I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in detail, I confess my inability to agree with the contentions of the counsel. About the alleged absence of material on the basis of which the District Collector has passed order is concerned, in my view, Ext.P7 itself belies this contention. This order shows that in the light of the previous incidents, in which the District Collector himself was also involved, he was satisfied WPC No. 37327/10 :4 : that if any permission is granted to the petitioner, that will result in the other faction of the worshippers protesting, thus giving rise to possibility of disturbance to the law and order situation. It was for that reason, the District Collector has passed Ext.P7 order, which is of a preventive one in nature. Therefore, I am not persuaded to agree with the counsel for the petitioner that there was absence of material or there was non application of mind on the part of the District Collector in passing Ext.P7.
7. It is true that as a result of Ext.P7, worshippers have lost the benefit of Ext.P1, which provided for opening the Church on Sundays for worship. However, as rightly stated in the impugned order itself, it was on account of the incidents that resulted in disturbance to the peace prevailing in the area, the District Collector had to pass Ext.P7, which resulted in permanent closure of the Church. In my view, if the worshippers prove themselves unworthy of any facility for worshipping in the church, the District Collector cannot be faulted for taking a preventive action.
I am not persuaded to interfere. Writ petition is dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp