P K JOSEPH Vs. MUNSIFF COURT ERNAKULAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is Chairman and Convenor of the Sub Committee constituted by the Executive Committee of the Diocese of North Kerala for the conduct of the election of the Bishop-pric panel for appointment of a new Bishop to the Dioceses of North Kerala, Church of South India. The existing Bishop will retire on 25-12-1997 and the office of the Bishop will become vacant on the next day. Therefore the election has to take place immediately. The council shall elect a panel not less than two and not more than four persons. The petitioner being the Chairman and Convenor of the Sub Committee has called for nominations. The last date fixed for filing nomination was 14-7-97. The election was to be held on 27-8-1997. It is alleged that certain disgruntled members of the Church are attempting to thwart the process of election to the Bishop-pric panel and have instituted civil suits before different courts. It is also alleged that "it is understood that some others are preparing for instituting suits and obtaining interim orders prohibiting the conduct of election to the Bishop-pric pannel before different Courts within the territorial jurisdiction". It is also alleged that "it is possible that some interim orders are also passed by the Subordinate Civil Courts within the jurisdiction of the revenue districts of Ernakulam. Trichur, Palakkad, Malappuram, Kozhikode Wynad, Kannur and Kasaragode and Indukki." There is a suit pending as O. S. 146/97 before the Munsiff Court, Ernakulam. Another O. S. No. 198/97 is pending before the Sub Court, Kozhikode. It is also submitted that O. S. 404/97 is pending before the Munsiff Court, Thaliparamba and O. S. 401/97 is pending before the Sub Court, Ernakulam. In O. S. 401/97 pending before the Sub Court an interim order of injunction has been passed, as averred in para 22 of the Original Petition. The petitioner therefore submits that, "if some of the disgruntled members of the Church of South India similarly choose to file suits before the various subordinate Civil Courts in the Districts above mentioned and seek and obtain interim orders restraining the conduct of election it will be almost impossible for the petitioner to go and defend the proceedings in the various court within those revenue districts. Further more the election process has already commenced from 4-4-1997 and it is to take place on 27-8-1997. Therefore the petitioner submits that the supervisory and visitorial jurisdiction of this Court shall be exercised "so as to enable the petitioner to have election of the Bishop-pric pannel to the North Kerala Diocese being conducted on 27-8-1997 unhampered by any orders of the Subordinate Civil Court within the revenue districts of Ernakulam, Idukki, Trichur, Palakkad, Kozhikode, Malappuram, Wynad, Kannur and Kasaragod." Therefore with this contention the petitioner prays for issue of "an order of declaration entitling the petitioner to carry on with the election of Bishop-pric pannel scheduled to be hold on 27-8-1997 unhampered and uninhibited by any interlocutory orders passed or that may be passed by the Subordinate Civil Courts within the revenue districts of Ernakulam, Idukki, Trichur, Palakkad, Malappuram, Kozhikode, Wynad, Kannur and kasargod." The petitioner is attempting to invoke the jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Certainly this Court has superintendence over all Courts and Tribunals throughout the territories of Kerala. In exercise of that superintendance this Court will have power of judicial revision also. The power of this Court under Article 227 is to keep the inferior Courts and tribunals' within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do what their duty requires and that they do it in a legal manner.' This power does not vest the High Court with any unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the respective subordinate courts. In other words the jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 227 is restricted to cases of grave dereliction of duty and/flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice. The High Court can interfere under Article 227 when an order of the Subordinate Court results in manifest injustice and if there is patent or flagrant error in the procedure or it arrives at finding which is totally perverse and based on no material. This Court also can interfere only when the subordinate Courts capriciously exercise its authority or discretion and in violation of principles of natural justice or if there is erroneous exercise of jurisdiction or excess of jurisdiction by such courts. The power will not be exercised to correct an error of fact or error of law committed by the subordinate court. What this Court will consider will be whether there had occur any error of law apparent on the face of record or whether any irregularity or illegality of procedure had crept in. Thus as regards the finding of fact of the inferior court, the jurisdiction under Article 227 is limitted to only examining whether the subordinate court kept itself within the bounds of its authority in reaching the finding of fact or in passing an order either interim or final.

(3.) The courts will entertain suits when there is an allegation of civil dispute and in appropriate cases exercising its discretion, the courts will pass appropriate interim orders. That will be perfectly within the jurisdiction of the respective civil courts. Merely because the Diocese of North Kerala for which a Bishop has to be elected from among its members stretches within the jurisdiction of several districts of this State, the exercise of jurisdiction by the civil court upon appropriate allegations by the respective litigant parties cannot be prohibited. The petitioner has no case that any of the courts where the suits are pending as mentioned above had exceeded its jurisdiction or violated any procedure or acted capriciously. The petitioner cannot obviously say whether there would be any excess of jurisdiction by the courts within the aforesaid districts as and when any suit is to be filed by any members of the Church with regard to the election to the Bishop-Pric pannel. Thus the petitioner has not disclosed any case for exercise of the jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. On the other hand what the petitioner needs is a situation for him to conduct an election without any order from the Court. He seeks a declaration that he is entitled to carry on the election of the Bishop-pric pannel. he cannot get such a declaration by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227. Even the only interim order passed by the Sub Court Ernakulam is not impugned in this Original Petition.Thus the petitioner has not disclosed any reason for interference. Original Petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.Order on C.M.P.No. 26765 of 1997 in O.P.No. 14870 of 1997 TDismissed.Petition dismissed.