Pastor M.A. Philip and Abraham V. Babu v. The Executive Committee of Malayalam District Council of the South India Assemblies of God Church

_**OP(C).1484/21**_ 1 # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 15[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA,** **1943** **OP(C) NO. 1484 OF 2021** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CMA 8/2020 OF SUB COURT AT** **PUNALUR, KOLLAM.** **OS 213/2020 OF MUNSIFF COURT, PUNALUR** ## **PETITIONER/S:** 1 PASTOR M.A.PHILIP AGED 48 YEARS S/O.LATE M.C.ALEXANDER, ASSEMBLY OF GOD CHURCH, P.B.NO.17, MARKET ROAD, KOTHAMANGALAM P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2 PASTOR ABRAHAM V.BABU, AGED 65 YEARS S/O.LATE ABRAHAM V.O., VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KULANADA P.O., KULANADA VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADVS. P.VISWANATHAN (SR.) V.SETHUNATH ## **RESPONDENT/S:** THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF MALAYALAM DISTRICT COUNSEL OF THE SOUTH INDIA ASSEMBLIES OF GOD CHURCH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY T.V.PAULOSE, AGED 58 YEARS, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT ASSEMBLIES OF GOD HEAD OFFICE, P.B.NO.53, PUNALUR-691305, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. _**OP(C).1484/21**_ 2 BY ADVS. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.) B.KRISHNA MANI SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN SRI.M.KIRANLAL SRI.T.S.SARATH SRI.R.RAJESH (VARKALA) SHRI.SAMEER M NAIR DHANUJA M.S THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 8.12.2021, THE COURT ON 15.12.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: _**OP(C).1484/21**_ 3 ## **V.G.ARUN, J.** ## **-----------------------------------------------** ## **O.P(C).No.1484 of 2021** ## **-----------------------------------------------** **Dated this the 15[th] day of December, 2021** ## **JUDGMENT** Petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.213 of 2020 on the files of the Munsiff's Court, Punalur. The averments in the plaint are to the following effect. The defendant is the executive committee of the Malayalam District Council of the South India Assemblies of God, which is a Society registered under the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955. The 1st petitioner is a member of the defendant committee and the 2[nd] petitioner is a section presbyter and ordained pastor. The tenure of the defendant Committee is two years. The last election to the defendant committee was held on 14.3.2018 and the tenure of the committee expired on 14.3.2020. The defendant committee failed to take timely steps for conducting election. As the tenure of the committee was over, petitioners along with some other presbyters and pastors demanded the defendant not to take any policy decisions including transfers and postings. This was not to the liking of the Secretary and other members of the committee. To wreak _**OP(C).1484/21**_ 4 vengeance and quell the demand, petitioner were issued with notices on 5.8.2020 and 24.8.2020, proposing to initiate disciplinary proceedings against them. As the attempt of the incumbent office bearers was to cling on to power and to remove the petitioners from their positions, for having questioned their illegal action, the suit was filed seeking a decree of prohibitory injunction against the defendant from executing or initiating disciplinary proceedings against the plaintiffs or from doing any act, causing damage to the reputation and position of the plaintiffs, or any act, except the day-to-day inevitable affairs of the defendant, as a caretaker executive committee. 2. Along with the plaint the petitioners filed an interlocutory application for injunction. In its objection the respondent stated that the present executive committee was elected in the annual conference held on 13.3.2018 and 14.3.2018. In that conference a resolution was taken to convene the succeeding annual conference in the month of August and accordingly, the annual conference was held on 28.8.2019 and hence tenure of the incumbent committee got extended up to 10.8. 2020. From March, 2020 onwards, restrictions and lock down was imposed by the Government. Even then, respondent requested for sanction to conduct annual conference and election on 25.8.2020 and 26.8.2020. The the request was turned down by the Disaster Management Authority, Kollam _vide_ letter dated 16.7.2020. Hence, permission was sought from the District Registrar for the present committee to continue in office and the same was granted _vide_ letter dated 9.9.2020. No _**OP(C).1484/21**_ 5 request was made by the petitioners or others to restrict the functions to the day-to-day affairs and the committee or the Secretary has no animosity against the petitioners. Disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioners based on complaint of sexual promiscuity. A preliminary enquiry was conducted on 4.8.2020 and 21.8.2020. Since the allegations were grave, petitioners were asked to abstain from their duties and to submit their explanation. After the enquiry, petitioners were suspended and the suspension letter and enquiry notice was issued to them on 24.8.2020. Thereafter, the suit was filed suppressing material facts and raising frivolous allegations. 3. The trial court rejected the prayer for injunction as per Exhibit P2 order, which is affirmed by Exhibit P1 judgment of the Appellate Court. 4. Sri.P.Viswanathan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the present executive committee is holding on to power illegally, under cover of the Covid-19 pandemic. Reference is made to Clause VI(2) of the by-law to contend that the term of executive committee is only for two years and the term being over, the committee in office can function only as a caretaker committee and cannot take major policy decisions. Moreover, the five member committee does not have sufficient strength to constitute the quorum for taking decisions. Reference is made to the order dated 9.4.2021, whereby this Court restrained the respondent from taking any decision on policy matters, including transfers and postings. _**OP(C).1484/21**_ 6 Attention is drawn to the subsequent order dated 9.4.2021, whereby this Court had directed the conduct of election to the executive committee within one month and appointed an Advocate Commissioner for overseeing the election. The interim order was extended with an observation that, decisions regarding transfers and postings of Pastors can be decided by the committee to be elected. As the elections could not be held, the time limit was extended by another three months from 9.4.2021. The restriction against large gatherings being still in force, the annual conference and election could not be held. In such circumstances, the respondent is to be restrained from taking policy decisions. Relying on the decision in _**Galgolias University v. Malayala Manorama Co.Ltd.**_ [2019 (1) KHC 764], it is contended that the order of the trial court is liable to be set aside for non-compliance of Rule 181 and 186 of Civil Rules of Practice, inasmuch as the order does not contain the list of exhibits relied on. 5. Advocate Sri.S.Sreekumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent highlighted the limited scope of interference under Article 227, against the concurrent findings of the courts below. Drawing attention to Clauses VI(2) and XIII-D of the by-laws, it is submitted that, the committee and its office bearers are elected for two years, but can continue in office till their successors are elected. The allegation that the committee is clinging on to power illegally is stoutly denied. The efforts taken by the committee to conduct annual conference and election is pointed out. It is _**OP(C).1484/21**_ 7 contended that, disciplinary proceedings was initiated against petitioners based on serious allegations and enquiry was conducted in strict compliance of the principles of natural justice and fairplay. Relying on Clause XV(8) and XXIB(2) of the bye-laws, it is contended that the respondent is empowered to suspend and to take disciplinary action against its members. It is assured that all efforts will be taken to conduct the annual conference and election at the earliest opportunity. 6. The courts below having concurrently repelled the prayer for injunction, after elaborately dealing with the factual contentions, it is not for this Court to sit in judgment over those findings. As held by the Honourable Supreme Court in _**State Through Special Cell, New Delhi v. Navjot Sandhu**_ [(2003) 6 SCC 641] the jurisdiction under Article 227 is not to be exercised 'as the cloak of an appeal in disguise’. The power of superintendence under Article 227 is to be exercised sparingly, to keep the Subordinate Courts and Tribunals within the bounds of their authority and not to correct mere errors. As per the bye-law provisions, the committee in office can continue till the next election. Such committee's power is not seen restricted in any manner. Indisputably, the committee has the power to suspend and take disciplinary action against erring members. As such, the courts below cannot be faulted for rejecting the prayer for injunction. Needless to say that the findings at the interlocutory stage are only prima facie in nature and the suit will be decided based on the evidence to be tendered. In view of the order being passed and _**OP(C).1484/21**_ 8 the trial court having specifically mentioned about the documents in the order, though not separately listed, I find no reason to interfere with the order for alleged non-compliance of Rules 181 and 186 of Civil Rules of Practice. In the result, the original petition is dismissed with the following directions; The trial court shall take earnest efforts to dispose of the suit at the earliest and at any rate, within six months of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The parties are at liberty to raise all contentions urged before this Court and to tender evidence in support of their pleadings. The suit shall be decided, untrammeled by the findings herein and uninfluenced by the observations in the impugned order/judgment. Whenever it becomes possible to hold the annual conference and conduct election to the executive committee in compliance with the guidelines issued by the Government, either party can approach the trial court for a direction/permission in that regard. Sd/- ## **V.G.ARUN, JUDGE** vgs