Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaDivision BenchWrit Appeal dismissed.

P.K. Scaria v. St. George Tabore Church & Others

Case / Petition Number:Writ Appeal No.1445 of 2021

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P.B. Suresh Kumar
  • C.S. Sudha
Judgment Date
2021-11-08
Court Decision / Holding
Writ Appeal No.1445 of 2021 is dismissed. It is clarified that the judgment will not preclude the appellant from canvassing the correctness of the findings and observations sought to be expunged at the time of final hearing of WP(C) 1409/2021.
Final Disposition
Writ Appeal dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • P.K. Scaria

Respondents

  • 1 ST. GEORGE TABORE CHURCH, PEECHANIKKADU, P.O. PULIYANAM, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM-683 572, REPRESENTED BY ITS TRUSTEE K.M. ELDHO, S/O. MATHEW, AGED 53 YEARS, KAIPARAMBATTU HOUSE, P.O. PULIYANAM, ERNAKULAM-683 572
  • 2 FR. T.V. ELDHOSE, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. T.V. VARGHESE, THELAPPILLY HOUSE, P.O. KORATTY EAST, THRISSUR-680 308
  • 3 RAJU VARGHESE, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O. VARKEY PILLAI, KAIPARAMBATTU HOUSE, P.O. PULIYANAM, ERNAKULAM-683 572
  • 4 M.P. MATHAI, AGED 67 YEARS, S/O. POULOSE, MOOLAN HOUSE, P.O. PULIYANAM, ERNAKULAM-683 572
  • 5 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
  • 6 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682 031
  • 7 STATE POLICE CHIEF, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, TIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
  • 8 DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE (RURAL), SH 16, OPP. POWER HOUSE, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM-683 101.
  • 9 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, POWER HOUSE JUNCTION, SUB JAIL ROAD, PERIYAR NAGAR, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM-683 101
  • 10 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ANGAMALY POLICE STATION, NH 47, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM-683 572
  • 11 P.M. ELIAS, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. MATHEW, PURATHEKKATTU HOUSE, PEECHANIKKADU, P.O. PULIYANAM, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM-683 572
  • 12 WILSON K. MATHAPPAN@ K.M. WILSON, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O. MATHAPPAN, KOORANTHAZHATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, PEECHANIKKADU, P.O PULIYANAM, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM-683 572
  • 13 SHAJI YACOB, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. YACOB, MANIYARA HOUSE, PEECHANIKKADU, P.O. PULIYANAM, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM-683 572
  • 14 P.P. VARGHESE, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O. POULOSE, PYNADATH HOUSE, PEECHANIKKADU, P.O. PULIYANAM, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM-683 572
  • 15 K.M. SHAJU, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O. MATHAPPAN, KOORANTHAZHATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O. KARUKUTTY, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM-683 576
  • 16 T.V. ELIAS, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. VARGHESE, THELAPPILLY HOUSE, P.O. PULIYANAM, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM-683 572
  • 17 NELSON JAMES, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O. JAMES, THELAPPILLY HOUSE, PEECHANIKKADU, P.O. PULIYANAM, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM-683 572
  • 18 BEJI ITTIERA, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. ITTIERA, KOORANTHAZHATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, ATTAKUZHY, P.O. PULIYANAM, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM-683 572
  • 19 ELDO PAUL, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. POULOSE, THELAPPILLY HOUSE, PEECHANIKKADU P.O, PULIYANAM, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM-683 572
  • 20 K.T. ELDO, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O. THOMAS, KATHANADAN HOUSE, PEECHANIKKADU, P.O. PULIYANAM, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM-683 572
  • 21 T.C. ELIAS, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O. CHACKO, THELAPPILLY HOUSE, PEECHANIKKADU, P.O. PULIYANAM, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM-683 572
  • 22 KURIAKOSE VARGHESE @ P.V. KURIAKOSE, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. VARGHESE, PALATHINKAL HOUSE, PEECHANIKKADU, P.O PULIYANAM, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM-683 572
  • 23 SHAJU YOHANNAN, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. YOHANNAN, PALIKKEDATH HOUSE, PEECHANIKKADU, P.O. PULIYANAM, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM-683 572
  • 24 P.P. ELDHO, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. POULOSE, PANTHAPLAKKA HOUSE, ATTAKUZHY, P.O. PULIYANAM, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM-683 572
  • 25 P.V. ELDO, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. VARGHESE, PALATHINKAL HOUSE, PEECHANIKKADU, P.O. PULIYANAM, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM-683 572
  • 26 T.V. SCARIA, AGED 68 YEARS, S/O. VAREETH, THELAPPILLY HOUSE, PEECHANIKKADU, P.O. PULIYANAM, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM-683 572
  • 27 P.O. ROY, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. OUSEPH, PALATHINKAL HOUSE, PEECHANIKKADU, P.O. PULIYANAM, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM-683 572
  • 28 SALJO @ SALJO MATHAI, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. MATHAI, PARAYIL HOUSE, PEECHANIKKADU, P.O. PULIYANAM, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM-683 572
  • 29 T.G. SHAJAN, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. GEORGE, THELAPPILLY HOUSE, PEECHANIKKADU P.O, P.O. PULIYANAM, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM-683 572
  • 30 FR. ELDO CHERIAN, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. CHERIAN, KOORAN HOUSE, P.O. THURAVOOR, UTHUPPAN KAVALA, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM-683 572
  • 31 P.V. ELDO, AGED 50 YEARS, P.V. VARGHESE, PAREKKATTIL HOUSE, PEECHANIKKADU, P.O. PULIYANAM, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM-683 572
  • 32 A.P. VARGHESE, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. POULOSE, PAINADATH AYYAMPILLY HOUSE, PULIYANAM KARA, KARUKUTTY VILLAGE, KARUKUTTY P.O, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM-683 576

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • S.K. Premraj
  • • C. Anil Kumar (Kalleseril)
  • • V. Saritha
  • • P. M. M. Manash
  • • Reenu Kurian
  • • Neema Noor Mohammed
  • • Jain Varghese Navas
  • • Jan A.

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ appeal, heard by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, challenges an interim order dated 5 October 2021 passed in WP(C) No. 1409 of 2021, directing police aid to protect parish churches of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church amid factional strife between Orthodox and Patriarch factions. The appellant, P.K. Scaria, contends that key findings in the impugned order (paras. 7–15, 19, 20 and 22) rest on a misinterpretation of the Supreme Court’s decision in K.S. Varghese v. St. Peter's & St. Paul's Syrian Orthodox Church (2017) 15 SCC 333, and seeks expunction of those observations. It is argued that the interim directive merely requires law and order preservation and protection of church properties pending the final adjudication, and does not create rights adverse to the petitioner. The learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4 concede the matter concerns a factional dispute but support maintaining peaceful conditions and safeguarding assets. The court notes that the interim order, aimed at preventing violations and ensuring peace, has not determined the petition’s merits; since the writ petition remains pending and the appellant is not directly affected by the interim direction, the appeal against the interim order is not entertainable. The bench ultimately dismisses the writ appeal but clarifies that the appellant may challenge the contested observations at the final hearing of WP(C) 1409/2021.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that key findings in the impugned order (paras. 7–15, 19, 20 and 22) rely on a misinterpretation of the Supreme Court’s decision in K.S. Varghese v. St. Peter's & St. Paul's Syrian Orthodox Church (2017) 15 SCC 333, and seeks expunction of those observations. It argues that the interim directive is limited to preserving law and order and protecting church properties pending final adjudication, and does not adversely affect the appellant’s rights. The appellant emphasizes that the writ petition remains pending and the order serves only to maintain peace between factions, not resolve the merits. The appellant contends the observations should be corrected to reflect accurate legal reasoning and to avoid expanding the scope of police aid beyond its legitimate purpose.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the interim order serves to maintain public order and safeguard church assets amid a factional dispute within the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church. They submit that police protection is a necessary, temporary measure to prevent violence and property damage until the petition is resolved on merits. They rely on the court’s inherent power to preserve peace and prevent breach of law and order in sensitive, factional disputes affecting religious institutions. They argue that the order is limited in scope and does not decide the petition’s merits, and that the appellant’s challenge to the observations should be addressed at final hearing.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
K.S. Varghese v. St. Peter's & St. Paul's Syrian Orthodox Church(2017) 15 SCC 333Partly Overruled / LimitedThe High Court notes that the impugned order relied on a misinterpretation of this decision and directs expunction of those observations, thereby limiting the use of this precedent in the present context.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against P.K. Scaria v. St. George Tabore Church & Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA** **MONDAY, THE 8[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 17TH KARTHIKA, 1943 WA NO. 1445 OF 2021** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 05.10.2021 IN WP(C) 1409/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM** **APPELLANT/20TH RESPONDENT:** **P.K.SCARIA, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O. KUNJAVARA, PARAYIL HOUSE, PEECHANIKKADU, P.O. PULIYANAM, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM-683 572** **BY ADVS. S.K.PREMRAJ C.ANILKUMAR (KALLESSERIL) V.SARITHA P.M.MANASH REENU KURIAN NEEMA NOOR MOHAMED JAIN VARGHESE NAVAS JAN A.** ## **RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 19 AND 21** **TO 29:** - **1 ST. GEORGE TABORE CHURCH, PEECHANIKKADU, P.O. PULIYANAM, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM-683 572, REPRESENTED BY ITS TRUSTEE K.M. ELDHO, S/O. MATHEW, AGED 53 YEARS, KAIPARAMBATTU HOUSE, P.O. PULIYANAM, ERNAKULAM-683 572** - **2 FR. T.V. ELDHOSE, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. T.V. VARGHESE, THELAPPILLY HOUSE, P.O. KORATTY EAST, THRISSUR-680 308** 2 Writ Appeal No.1445 of 2021 - **3 RAJU VARGHESE, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O. VARKEY PILLAI, KAIPARAMBATTU HOUSE, P.O. PULIYANAM, ERNAKULAM-683 572** - **4 M.P. MATHAI, AGED 67 YEARS, S/O. POULOSE, MOOLAN HOUSE, P.O. PULIYANAM, ERNAKULAM-683 572** - **5 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001** - **6 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682 031** - **7 STATE POLICE CHIEF, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, TIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001** - **8 DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE (RURAL), SH 16, OPP. POWER HOUSE, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM-683 101.** - **9 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, POWER HOUSE JUNCTION, SUB JAIL ROAD, PERIYAR NAGAR, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM-683 101** - **10 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ANGAMALY POLICE STATION, NH 47, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM-683 572** - **11 P.M. ELIAS, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. MATHEW, PURATHEKKATTU HOUSE, PEECHANIKKADU, P.O. PULIYANAM, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM-683 572** - **12 WILSON K. MATHAPPAN@ K.M. WILSON, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O. MATHAPPAN,** - **KOORANTHAZHATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, PEECHANIKKADU, P.O PULIYANAM, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM-683 572** - **13 SHAJI YACOB, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. YACOB, MANIYARA HOUSE, PEECHANIKKADU, P.O. PULIYANAM, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM-683 572** 3 Writ Appeal No.1445 of 2021 - **14 P.P. VARGHESE, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O. POULOSE, PYNADATH HOUSE, PEECHANIKKADU, P.O. PULIYANAM, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM-683 572** - **15 K.M. SHAJU, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O. MATHAPPAN, KOORANTHAZHATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O. KARUKUTTY, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM-683 576** - **16 T.V. ELIAS, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. VARGHESE, THELAPPILLY HOUSE, P.O. PULIYANAM, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM-683 572** - **17 NELSON JAMES, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O. JAMES, THELAPPILLY HOUSE, PEECHANIKKADU, P.O. PULIYANAM, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM-683 572** - **18 BEJI ITTIERA, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. ITTIERA, KOORANTHAZHATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, ATTAKUZHY, P.O. PULIYANAM, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM-683 572** - **19 ELDO PAUL, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. POULOSE, THELAPPILLY HOUSE, PEECHANIKKADU P.O, PULIYANAM, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM-683 572** - **20 K.T. ELDO, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O. THOMAS, KATHANADAN HOUSE, PEECHANIKKADU, P.O. PULIYANAM, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM-683 572** - **21 T.C. ELIAS, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O. CHACKO, THELAPPILLY HOUSE, PEECHANIKKADU, P.O. PULIYANAM, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM-683 572** - **22 KURIAKOSE VARGHESE @ P.V. KURIAKOSE, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. VARGHESE, PALATHINKAL HOUSE, PEECHANIKKADU, P.O PULIYANAM, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM-683 572** 4 Writ Appeal No.1445 of 2021 - **23 SHAJU YOHANNAN, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. YOHANNAN, PALIKKEDATH HOUSE, PEECHANIKKADU, P.O. PULIYANAM, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM-683 572** - **24 P.P. ELDHO, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. POULOSE, PANTHAPLAKKA HOUSE, ATTAKUZHY, P.O. PULIYANAM, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM-683 572** - **25 P.V. ELDO, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. VARGHESE, PALATHINKAL HOUSE, PEECHANIKKADU, P.O. PULIYANAM, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM-683 572** - **26 T.V. SCARIA, AGED 68 YEARS, S/O. VAREETH, THELAPPILLY HOUSE, PEECHANIKKADU, P.O. PULIYANAM, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM-683 572** - **27 P.O. ROY, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. OUSEPH, PALATHINKAL HOUSE, PEECHANIKKADU, P.O. PULIYANAM, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM-683 572** - **28 SALJO @ SALJO MATHAI, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. MATHAI, PARAYIL HOUSE, PEECHANIKKADU, P.O. PULIYANAM, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM-683 572** - **29 T.G. SHAJAN, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. GEORGE, THELAPPILLY HOUSE, PEECHANIKKADU P.O, P.O. PULIYANAM, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM-683 572** - **30 FR. ELDO CHERIAN, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. CHERIAN, KOORAN HOUSE, P.O. THURAVOOR, UTHUPPAN KAVALA, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM-683 572** **31 P.V. ELDO, AGED 50 YEARS, P.V. VARGHESE, PAREKKATTIL HOUSE, PEECHANIKKADU, P.O. PULIYANAM, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM-683 572.** 5 Writ Appeal No.1445 of 2021 **32 A.P. VARGHESE, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. POULOSE, PAINADATH AYYAMPILLY HOUSE, PULIYANAM KARA, KARUKUTTY VILLAGE, KARUKUTTY P.O, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM-683 576 SRI.P.K.VIPINDAS GP** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON** **08.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 6 Writ Appeal No.1445 of 2021 ## **P.B.SURESH KUMAR & C.S.SUDHA, JJ.** **----------------------------------------------Writ Appeal No.1445 of 2021** ## **-----------------------------------------------** **Dated this the 8[th] day of November, 2021** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.** This appeal is directed against the interim order dated 05.10.2021 in W.P.(C) No.1409 of 2021. The appellant is respondent No.20 in the writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as also the learned Senior Counsel for respondents 1 to 4, the petitioners in the writ petition. 3. The impugned order is a common interim order passed by the learned Single Judge in a batch of writ petitions seeking police aid in respect of a few Parish Churches under the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church (the Church). The dispute in the 7 Writ Appeal No.1445 of 2021 said cases is essentially a dispute between two factions of the Church, the Orthodox faction and the Patriarch faction. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the findings and observations made in paragraphs 7 to 15, 19, 20 and 22 of the impugned order to justify the directions issued in the order are rendered on a misinterpretation of the decision of the Apex Court in **K.S. Varghese v. St. Peter's & St. Paul's Syrian Orthodox Church** , (2017) 15 SCC 333, and the said findings and observations are therefore, liable to be expunged. 5. It is seen that in terms of the interim order impugned in the writ appeal, the learned Single Judge has only directed the Superintendents of Police and the officers under their command to ensure that the areas where the Parish Churches are situated are protected from any violation of law and order by any person and that no attempt to breach peace or commit violence is tolerated or permitted from any person on either side of the divide and that the properties and assets of the churches are protected. 6. Insofar as the writ petition is still pending, we do not find any reason to entertain the appeal preferred against the 8 Writ Appeal No.1445 of 2021 interim order passed in the writ petition, especially since the appellant is not in any manner affected by the said interim order and the appellant is entitled to canvass the correctness of the findings and observations sought to be expunged, at the time of final hearing of the writ petition. We have taken the said view in an application seeking leave to institute an appeal against the impugned interim order and declined the leave sought for in the application, as per order on I.A.No.1 of 2021 in an unnumbered writ appeal. In the said view of the matter, the writ appeal is dismissed. It is, however, made clear that this judgment will not preclude the appellant from canvassing the correctness of the findings and observations sought to be expunged, at the time of final hearing of the writ petition. **Sd/-** ## **P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.** **Sd/-** ## **C.S.SUDHA, JUDGE.** YKB