DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KAKKANAD Vs. FR.THOMAS PAUL RAMBAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals had been filed challenging judgment dated 3/12/2019 in WP(C) No. 25089/2019 whereby the learned Single Judge has issued the following directions:-

(2.) WA No.320/2020 has been filed by the District Collector and official respondents inter alia contending that the exercise of jurisdiction by the learned Single Judge was totally improper in so far as the District Administration ought to have been given sufficient time to ensure that peace and harmony remains among the members of the parish and operational freedom ought to have been given to the police rather than issuing the directions mentioned in the impugned judgment. It is also contended that the suit filed by the petitioner before the civil Court in which the interim direction had been issued was not maintainable in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in K.S.Varghese v. St.Peter 's and St.Pauls Syrian Orthodox Church and Others [(2017) 15 SCC 333]. It is also the case of the appellants that a proper opportunity was not given to the appellants to file counter affidavit in the matter. The learned State Attorney Sri.K.V. Sohan argued that it is for the respective factions to settle their differences in an amicable manner and without taking any steps in that regard, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking police protection. It is pointed out that large number of parishioners are obstructing the attempt on the part of the petitioner to take charge of the parish church and therefore severe law and order problem may arise if the District Administration or Police take action in the matter and it is all the more necessary that the parties should sit together and settle the issue rather than trying to enforce the rights of one faction over the other. It is further argued that there is no mandate in the judgment in K.S.Varghese's case (supra) that the petitioner should be given custody of the church and therefore the learned Single Judge has gone beyond the dictum laid down in the said judgment. It is also argued that the petitioner had approached this Court for enforcing an order passed by the civil court. When the judgment in K.S.Varghese's case (supra) was delivered, any order passed by the civil court has to be ignored. The learned State Attorney also placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in State of M.P. v. Mangilal Sharma [(1998) 2 SCC 510]. That was a case in which an employee filed a suit for a declaration that he continued to be in service of the establishment.

(3.) WA No.457/2020 has been filed by respondents 10 and 11 in WP(C) No. 25089/2019. The argument raised by Sri.George Poonthottam, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants is based on an earlier judgment of this Court and the Supreme Court. That was a case in which a batch of cases were filed before the High Court calling upon the State to provide police protection in order to enable the Catholicos cum Malankara Metropolitan of Malankara church to exercise his duties, rights and privileges with respect to the parish churches without any threat or obstruction from certain private respondents. A Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 28/1/2003 in OP No.22946/2002 and connected cases held that the right of parish churches were not determined by the judgment of Apex Court in Most.Rev.P.M.A. Metropolitan v. Moran Mar Marthoma (AIR 1995 SC 2001) and therefore the petitioner has no right over the churches, which were not parties in the case. Consequently it was directed that police help cannot be ordered for the mere asking and that in matters involving religious institutions, it would be normally inappropriate to order grant of police protection unless a case is made out. The matter was taken in appeal before the Apex Court and decided in Civil Appeal No.5460-5466/2004. The Apex Court having set aside the judgment of the High Court held that the High Court had committed manifest error in going into the disputed questions of title and also the disputed questions with regard to the rights of a particular group to manage the churches in exercise of its writ jurisdiction especially when those cases are pending before the competent civil courts. It was therefore held that any observation made by the Court will not influence the courts while arriving at the independent decisions and all contentions of the parties were left open. It was also argued that the original of 1934 Constitution has not been seen by anyone to claim the benefit of 1934 Constitution. On that basis it is contended that the judgment obtained by the petitioner was by practicing fraud on Court and is a nullity. Therefore, according to the petitioner, K.S.Varghese's case (supra) as well as the judgment in Most.Rev.P.M.A. Metropolitan (supra) is a nullity in the eye of law as the same has been obtained by practicing fraud on Court.