C.V. VARIATH, SON OF VARIATH CHEERAN AND K.V. JOSE, SON OF VARIATH Vs. CHERIYAKKU IYAPOORU, SON OF CHERIYAKKU,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition for police protection filed by the two members belonging to the Patriarch faction among the parishioners of Pengamukku Church at Kunnamkulam. They sought for a direction to the 5th respondent and his subordinates to take effective and adequate action by granting police protection to the petitioners' group for the conduct of evening prayers on all days of the week, conduct all religious services on Wednesday and Saturdays and other days important from a religious point of view, conduct Christmas services, conduct Easter Services and conduct of annual festival and all functions connected therewith in the St. Peter's and St. Paul's Jacobite Syrian Church, Pengamukku, without any obstructions from respondents 1 to 3 or any one claiming under them until a new managing committee of the Pengammukku Church is elected in accordance with the proceedings initiated in E.P. No. 89 of 2001 in O.s. No. 4 of 1987 for the execution of the decree of a Division Bench of this Court in A.F.A. No. 19 of 2001, in the interest of justice.

(2.) WE have heard Sri. N. Sankara Menon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. We are not inclined to entertain this writ petition for the reason that the very same petitioners had approached this court for almost the similar relief by filing O.P. No. 6574 of 2002 and on reference by a learned Single Judge, a Division bench of this Court to which one of us (Sivarajan, J.) was a party dismissed the said writ petition by judgment dated 25th March, 2002 (Ext.P12). The judgment reads as follows:

(3.) THIS time, there is an ingenious attempt to enter the Court by a side door. O.P. 6574 of 2002 is filed and the State and Police Officers are made parties. The prayer in O.P. is to grant adequate Police Protection to the petitioner - Patriarch group - to conduct is the services from 23.03.2002 to 31.03.2002. The learned single judge took the view that matter was covered by the direction of the Supreme Court, but since we had dealt with the matter in W.A. 407 of 2002, it would be better that the Division Bench decides it.