M ISAAC Vs. CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING the election to the Executive Committee Members for Tirunelveli Diocese, the Plaintiff-Isaac, who claims to be a Member of Kulavanigarpuram CSI Church forming part of Tirunelveli Diocese has filed the Suit. The Plaintiff seeks for a declaration that the election held on 04.12.2007 for the post of Executive Committee Members for Tirunelveli Diocese is null and void and for mandatory injunction to direct the First Defendant-Moderator to appoint some other independent persons in the place of the Second Defendant-Bishop as Election Officer and to direct the First Defendant to conduct a fresh election for the post of Executive Members for Tirunelveli Diocese. This Application has been filed to grant "Leave to Sue" to institute the above Suit against the Respondents/ Defendants 2 to 5 before this Court.

(2.) THE Applicant/Plaintiff is stated to be a Member of Kulavanigarpuram CSI Church and Pastorate of Tirunelvi CSI Diocese. THE case of the Applicant is that himself and Dr. Chelliah were elected as Diocese Council Member and in Tirunelveli Diocese in 1992 Pastorate elections were held and CC Members were elected. THE next stage of election is for the post of Executive Committee Members. According to the Applicant, there are 125 DC and CC Members from 17 Pastorates of Tirunelveli Diocese, are eligible to vote. THE Applicant/Plaintiff has alleged that he is representing 125 elected Members of 17 Pastorates of Tirunelveli Diocese and all these Members were prevented from voting and contesting the Executive Committee Election. THE Applicant has alleged that the election was postponed on 04.12.2007. According to the Applicant, Fifth Respondent-Election Officer informed him by the letter dated 01.12.2007 that as per the Orders of Additional District Munsif Court, Nanguneri, in I.A. No. 739 of 2007 in O.S. No.194 of 2007, the Applicant and others (125 elected Members) would not be permitted to vote. THE Applicant has further alleged that one John had filed the Suit only at the behest of Second Respondent-Bishop. Certain allegations are levelled against the Second Respondent-Bishop and that the Rules of the Constitution of Tirunelveli Diocese are violated and therefore, the Applicant/Plaintiff has filed the Suit.

(3.) I have heard the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel Ms. Hema Sampath for the Applicant, the learned counsel for the First Respondent Mr. Adrian D. Rozario and the learned counsel for Respondents 2 to 4 Mr. T.R.K. Kumarasingh.