FR.THOMAS PAUL RAMBAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR KAKKANAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Marthoman Cheriyapalli, Kothamangalam (the Church) is a constituent Parish Church of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church. There is a dispute in the Church between two factions of the parishioners namely Patriarch faction and Orthodox faction. According to the Patriarch faction, the Church has to be administered in accordance with the Constitution of the Jacobite Syrian Church Sabha and according to the Orthodox faction, the Church has to be administered in accordance with the 1934 Constitution of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church. The petitioner is the Vicar of the Church appointed in terms of 1934 Constitution of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church and the parishioners belonging to Patriarch faction, on account of the factional dispute, did not permit him to enter the Church for performing religious ceremonies. The petitioner, therefore, instituted O.S.No.162 of 2018 before the Munsiff's Court, Muvattupuzha seeking a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants therein, in a representative capacity, from preventing the petitioner from performing religious ceremonies in the church and also restraining a few priests belonging to Patriarch faction from entering the Church. In the suit, the petitioner preferred I.A.No.830 of 2018 for an order of temporary injunction in tune with the reliefs sought in the suit and in terms of Ext.P1 order, the court restrained defendants 2 to 9 and their men and agents from causing any obstruction to the petitioner in the matter of discharging his duties and functions as the Vicar of the Church. The court also restrained defendants 1 to 5 therein, in terms of the said order, from acting as vicars/assistant vicars of the Church till the disposal of the suit. Ext.P1 order has become final. The suit is still pending.

(2.) It is stated by the petitioner that since the defendants in the suit did not obey Ext.P1 order of injunction, the petitioner filed I.A.No.2738 of 2018 seeking appropriate directions to the police for enforcing Ext.P1 order of injunction. In terms of Ext.P2 order, the trial court allowed I.A.No.2738 of 2018 and directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Muvattupuzha to provide police assistance to the petitioner for preventing violation of Ext.P1 order of injunction. Ext.P2 order was challenged by the defendants in the suit, in O.P.(C) No.3147 of 2018 before this court and in terms of Ext.P3 order, this court affirmed Ext.P2 order.

(3.) It is stated by the petitioner that although he sought police assistance from the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kothamangalam on the strength of Exts.P2 and P3 orders after communicating the same to him, for the purpose of conducting religious services in the Church on 20.12.2018, the police did not give any assistance and as a result, the parishioners belonging to Patriarch faction formed themselves into an unlawful assembly in the premises of the Church and prevented the petitioner from entering the Church. It is also stated by the petitioner that at the same time, despite Exts.P2 and P3 orders, the Police permitted the priests belonging to Patriarch faction to conduct religious ceremonies in the Church on that day. It is also stated by the petitioner that he was waiting for Police aid all throughout the day, and till about 2.45 p.m. on the succeeding day, and he was removed by the Police from the premises of the Church on the strength of Ext.P4 order issued by the District Magistrate. In Ext.P4 order, it is recited that though the Police made arrangements for rendering protection to the petitioner, the protection could not be rendered as large number of parishioners belonging to Patriarch faction assembled at the premises of the Church and obstructed the petitioner from entering inside the Church. It is also recited in the said order that the petitioner who was resisting the obstruction was required to be removed from the scene as his health condition was found deteriorating. It is stated that as the police machinery of the State failed to implement the orders issued by the courts, the petitioner preferred Ext.P16 representation to the District Collector and others requesting them to take effective and adequate steps to remove the obstructions so as to enable the petitioner and his assistants to conduct religious services in the Church and also to facilitate a peaceful atmosphere for the Parishioners to attend religious services. The writ petition is filed, thereupon, alleging that the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P16 representation is not being considered, and seeking the following reliefs :