RP No.705/2020 in WA No.1046/2020 & WA No.1046/2020

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.** **FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 24TH ASWINA, 1942 RP.No.705 OF 2020 IN WA. 1046/2020** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN WA 1046/2020 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **REVIEW PETITIONER/THIRD PARTIES (STRANGERS):** - **1 SANTHOSH MATHAI AGED 49 YEARS S/O. LATE T.P. MATHAI, VANMELIL THAZHAMANA HOUSE, MULANTHURUTHY-682314.** - **2 ROY THOMAS, AGED 45 YEARS S/O. V.C. THOMAS, VETTICKANCHAKRAVELIL HOUSE, PERUMPILLY P.O., MULANTHURUTHY-682314.** - **3 RAJU K.S., AGED 59 YEARS S/O. SCARIA K.C., KANJIRAMKUZHIYIL HOUSE, VETTICKAL P.O., PIN-682314, MULANTHURUTHY VIA.** - **4 PAULOSE K.V., AGED 54 YEARS S/O. VARGHESE, KUZHALIKKATTIL HOUSE, PULICKAMALI P.O., MULANTHURUTHY-682314.** - **5 JOHNSON T.Y., AGED 43 YEARS S/O. LATE T.M. YOHANNAN, THATHAMANGALATH HOUSE, MULANTHURUTHY P.O., PIN-682314, KARICODE.** RP No.705/2020 in WA No.1046/2020 & WA No.1046/2020 -: 2 :- **BY ADVS. SRI.MATHEWS J.NEDUMPARA SRI.P.BIJIMON SHRI. ABDUL JABBARUDEEN.M SMT. MARIA NEDUMPARA** ## **RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS AND RESPONDENTS:** - **1 DR.VISWAS METHA, CHIEF SECRETARY, THE STATE OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** - **2 SRI. S.SUHAS, THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM CIVIL STATION, ERNAKULAM-682030.** - **3 SRI. LOKNATH BEHERA, THE STATE POLICE CHIEF, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** - **4 SRI. S. KARTHICK, THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, ERNAKULAM RURAL, ALUVA-683101.** - **5 SRI. ANILKUMAR, THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MUVATTUPUZHA-686661.** - **6 SRI. V.S. SYAMKUMAR, THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MULANTHURUTHYP.O., PIN-682314.** **7 MARTHOMAN CHURCH, MULANTHURUTHY, REPRESENTED BY ITS TRUSTEE K.K. JIMMY THARAKAN, S/O. KORA, KALLARACKAL, MULANTHURUTHY P.O., PIN-682314.** RP No.705/2020 in WA No.1046/2020 & WA No.1046/2020 -: 3 :- - **8 SRI. SHAJAN JACOB, S/O. JACOB, AGED 61 YEARS, PALLIPPURAM HOUSE, MULANTHURUTHY P.O., PIN-682314.** - **9 SRI. EBIN MATHAI, S/O. IYPE MATHEW, AGED 56 YEARS, PONODATH HOUSE, AMBALLUR P.O., PIN-682315.** - **10 FR. GEO GEORGE, S/O. GEORGE, AGE 49 YEARS, VICAR, MARTHOMAN CHURCH, MULANTHURUTHY-682314.** - **11 FR. DAVID THANKACHAN, S/O. THANKACHAN, AGED 37 YEARS, ASSISTANT VICAR, MARTHOMAN CHURCH, MULANTHURUTHY-682314.** - **12 FR. THOMAS K. ELIAS, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. ELIAS, ASSISTANT VICAR, MARTHOMAN CHURCH, MULANTHURUTHY-682314.** - **13 FR. ALEX GEORGE, S/O. GEORGE, ASSISTANT VICAR, MARTHOMAN CHURCH, MULANTHURUTHY-682314.** **R1 TO R6 SRI. K.V. SOHAN- STATE ATTORNEY SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR) FOR R7 TO R13** **THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 3009-2020, ALONG WITH WA.1046/2020, THE COURT ON 16-10-2020 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** RP No.705/2020 in WA No.1046/2020 & WA No.1046/2020 -: 4 :- ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.** **FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 24TH ASWINA, 1942** ## **WA.No.1046 OF 2020** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN Con.Case(C) 777/2020 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS IN CC(C):** - **1 DR. VISHWAS METHA AGED 59 YEARS CHIEF SECRETARY, THE STATE OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001** - **2 SRI.S.SUHAS,IAS THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, ERNAKULAM-682 030** - **3 SRI.LOKNATH BEHERA, THE STATE POLICE CHIEF, POLICE HAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001** - **4 SRI.S.KARTHICK THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, ERNAKULAM RURAL, MUVATTUPUZHA,PIN-686 661** - **5 SRI.ANIL KUMAR, THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MUVATTUPUZHA,PIN-686 661** RP No.705/2020 in WA No.1046/2020 & WA No.1046/2020 ## -: 5 :- - **6 SRI.V.S.SYAM KUMAR, THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MULANTHURUTHY, MULANTHURUTHY P.O., PIN-682 314** **BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SOHAN, STATE ATTORNEY** ## **RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS IN CC(C):** - **1 MARTHOMAN CHURCH MULANTHURUTHY, REPRESENTED BY ITS TRUSTEE K.K.JIMMY THARAKAN, S/O. KORA ,KALLARACKAL, MULANTHURUTHY P.O.,PIN-682 314** - **2 SRI.SHAJAN JACOB, S/O. JACOB, PALLIPPURAM HOUSE, MULATHURUTHY P.O.,PIN-682 314** - **3 SRI.EBIN MATHAI, S/O. IYPE MATHEW, PONODATH HOUSE, AMBALLOOR P.O.,PIN-682 315** - **4 FR.GEO GEORGE, S/O.GEROGE, VICAR, MARTHOMA CHURCH, MULANTHURUTHY,PIN-682 314** - **5 FR.DAVID THANKACHAN S/O. THANKACHAN, ASSISTANT VICAR, MARTHOMA CHURCH, MULATHURUTHY,PIN-682 314** - **6 FR.THOMAS K.ELIAS, S/O. ELIAS, ASSISTANT VICAR, MARTHOMA CHURCH, MULATHURUTHY,PIN-682 314** - **7 FR.ALEX P. GEORGE, S/O. GEORGE, ASSISTANT VICAR, MARTHOMA CHURCH, MULATHURUTHY,PIN-682 314** RP No.705/2020 in WA No.1046/2020 & WA No.1046/2020 -: 6 :- **8 ADDL.R8.FR.E.P.JOHN AGED 93 YEARS S/O POULOSE, ERAMANGALATH HOUSE, VETTIKKAL P.O.MULANTHURUTHY, KANAYANNUR TALUK, PIN-682 314. (ADDL R8 AS ABOVE IN IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 30.9.2020 IN IA 1/2020)** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.) R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE R1 BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA R1 BY ADV. SMT.HANI P.NAIR R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.PRIJITH R1 BY ADV. SHRI.HARIKRISHNAN S. R1 BY ADV. SRI.AJAY BEN JOSE R1 BY ADV. SRI.MANJUNATH MENON R1 BY ADV. SRI.R.GITHESH R8 BY ADV. C.K.KARUNAKARAN** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-092020, ALONG WITH RP.705/2020, THE COURT ON 16-10-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** RP No.705/2020 in WA No.1046/2020 & WA No.1046/2020 -: 7 :- ## **J U D G M E N T** Dated this the 16[th] day of October, 2020 ## _**Shaffique, J.**_ The writ appeal is filed by the Chief Secretary, State of Kerala and other officers of the State Government who are respondents in Contempt Case (c) No.777/2020 in WP(C) No. 33316/2019. The contempt case came to be filed against the appellants alleging non compliance of directions issued by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.33316/2019. By judgment dated 18/5/2020 in WP(C) No. 33316/2019, the learned Single Judge directed the police to give effective protection to the petitioners therein to conduct religious services in Mulanthuruthy Marthoma Church as against any obstruction being caused by the party respondents or others. Police was also directed to ensure that the affairs of the management of the church are not being obstructed by the party respondents. It was further observed that if any force was required to take over the management and entrust the RP No.705/2020 in WA No.1046/2020 & WA No.1046/2020 **==> picture [27 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** same to the petitioners, the same shall also be done by the police. 2. In fact, the learned Single Judge had issued the aforesaid direction pursuant to an order dated 25/10/2019 passed by the District Court in IA No.624/2007 in OS No.1/1124(ME). 3. During the pendency of the contempt case, by an order dated 29/7/2020, when it was mentioned that the police had not rendered necessary police protection, learned Single Judge directed the District Collector, Ernakulam to take over possession of the church and thereafter the District Collector was directed to take action to hand over the church to the petitioners in consultation with the District Police and render necessary protection to the petitioners for administration of the church. On account of Covid-19 pandemic, the learned Single Judge has given sufficient period to the District Collector to take his own time for deploying the police force. 4. The respondents however challenged the aforesaid interim order inter alia contending that implementation of the RP No.705/2020 in WA No.1046/2020 & WA No.1046/2020 **==> picture [27 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** said order may affect the restrictive measures that are being taken by the Government to contain Covid-19 pandemic since the District Administration and other departments including the police are involved in ensuring that the pandemic does not spread and become out of control. 5. When the appeal came up for hearing, we were told that the learned Single Judge had again issued an order dated 10/8/2020 observing that there is blatant violation of the rule of law insofar as the direction issued on 29/7/2020 had not been complied with and in the said circumstances, the petitioners sought for assistance of Central Forces to take over possession of the church. The matter was therefore adjourned to 13/8/2020 requesting the ASG of India to express his views on deploying Central Forces. The said order reads as under:- _“The learned State Attorney would submit that due to Covid-19 and Flood situation prevailing in the District, the District Collector is not in a position to take over the administration of the church. It is further submitted that the District Administration also requires the assistance of police for the purpose of taking over the administration of the church on account of the resistance made by the opposing faction. The_ RP No.705/2020 in WA No.1046/2020 & WA No.1046/2020 **==> picture [33 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** _learned State Attorney submits that once Covid-19 restrictions are abated, necessary action shall be initiated by the District Administration as ordered by this Court. It is submitted that at least three months time would be required to comply with the directions._ _2 As revealed from the facts, there is a blatant violation of the Rule of Law. This Court understands the predicaments of the State officials on account of their engagement in rescue operations in flood as well as combating Covid-19. In such circumstances, it is appropriate to seek assistance of Central Forces to take over the possession of the church. Accordingly, the matter is adjourned for the views of the learned ASG.xxx_ ” 6. When the appeal came up for hearing on 12/8/2020, the learned State Attorney agreed that the District Administration would take steps for locking the church and will hand over the keys to the Court. Accordingly, we issued an interim order dated 12/8/2020 taking note of the said submission. The said order reads as under:- _“This appeal has been filed against an order dated 29.07.2020 by which the District Collector, Ernakulam was directed to take over the church with necessary police assistance and to hand over the church to the petitioners._ _2. When the appeal came up for hearing, it is brought to our notice that the learned single Judge had issued another order dated 10.08.2020 taking note of the_ RP No.705/2020 in WA No.1046/2020 & WA No.1046/2020 **==> picture [33 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** _predicaments of the District Administration on account of the restrictions imposed by Covid-19 pandemic. The Court, therefore, posted the matter for instructions from the ASG, as the matter related to deployment of central forces to take over the possession of the church._ _3. The learned State Attorney would submit that the District Administration shall take necessary police assistance to lock the church and had offered to hand over the keys to the Court. For the time being, it would be enough that the church and its premises be under the custody of the District Collector for which the District Collector shall lock the church and its premises and keep the keys with the District Collector himself. Until such time, the orders passed in the contempt case shall be kept in abeyance._ _Post on 17.08.2020.”_ 7. On 17/8/2020, the learned State Attorney submitted before us that the District Collector had taken custody of the church and the key is with the District Collector. The case was thereafter posted on 18/8/2020. In the meantime, it was submitted that certain applications are being filed by third parties before Court seeking review of order dated 12/8/2020 in the writ appeal. Hence we decided to hear the Review Petition as well. 8. RP No.705/2020 has been filed by third parties after seeking leave to review order dated 12/8/2020. IA No.1/2020 has RP No.705/2020 in WA No.1046/2020 & WA No.1046/2020 -: 12 :- been filed in RP No.705/2020 to restore possession of the Mulanthuruthy Marthoman Cathedral Church to the Metropolitans. Yet another third party has filed IA No.1/2020 in WA No. 1046/2020 to implead him as an additional respondent. 9. Having regard to the aforesaid factual situation, we heard Sri.K.V.Sohan, learned State Attorney, Sri.S.Sreekumar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents in the writ appeal, Sri.Mathews J.Nedumpara, learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners and Sri.Karunakaran C.K., learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in IA No.1/2020 in WA No.1046/2020. 10. Sri.C.K.Karunakaran, learned counsel submitted that the order passed by the District Court in IA No. 624/2007 in OS No.1/1124(ME) is under challenge before this Court though it is unnumbered. Learned counsel submits that as against the judgment dated 18/5/2020 in WP(C) No. 33316/2019, Special Leave Petition was filed before the Apex Court as SLP (c) No.11212/2020. The SLP was dismissed. However, the Apex Court made the following observation:- RP No.705/2020 in WA No.1046/2020 & WA No.1046/2020 **==> picture [33 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** _“Heard the learned counsel for the parties._ _We do not find any ground to entertain this special leave petition. The special leave petition is dismissed._ _However, we observe that 0.P. (Civil) No.57469/19 and the regular appeal filed against the order dated 25.10.2019 of First Additional District Judge should be decided on its own merits. We also note that the petitioners' case is that their case is not covered by K.S. Varghese vs. Saint Peters and Saint Paul"s Syrian Orthodox Church (2017) 15 SCC 333 whereas the learned counsel for the respondents submits that this case is fully covered by the judgment of this Court in K.S. Varghese (supra)._ _Pending application (s), if any, stands disposed of. SLP(C) No.11562/2020_ _The special leave petition is dismissed._ _Pending application (s), if any, stands disposed of."_ Therefore, it is submitted that until there is a finality to the order in OP(Civil) No.57469/2019 and the regular appeal filed against the order dated 25/10/2019, further direction should not be issued in the case. 11. Learned counsel Sri.Mathews J. Nedumpara made a submission that the judgment in _**K.S.Varghese v. Saint Peter's and Saint Paul's Syrian Orthodox Church**_ [(2017) 15 SCC 333] cannot be applied to all the pending cases. Each case has to be decided on its own facts. It is submitted that in RP No.705/2020 in WA No.1046/2020 & WA No.1046/2020 -: 14 :- _**K.S.Varghese's case**_ (supra), Apex Court took a view that the patriarch faction should accept Malankara Metropolitan-cum Catholicos as the supreme spiritual, temporal and ecclesiastical authority on account of the judgments in _**Moran Mar Basselious Catholicos v. Thukalan Paulo Avira and Others**_ (AIR 1959 SC 31) and _**Most Rev.P.M.A.Metropolitan and Others v. Moran Mar Marthoma and Another**_ [1995 SCC Suppl.(4) 286]. It is pointed out that in the _**Samudayam case**_ of 1959, the Apex Court did not allow the plea of the patriarch faction that the patriarch alone is entitled to ordain Metropolitans and to consecrate the Holy Morone etc., based on the judgment of the Travancore High Court in the _**Vattipanam case**_ of the year 1928. It is argued that the judgment in _**Vattipanam case**_ and the reasoning thereof was for a limited purpose and the Supreme Court erred in considering the said judgment as binding on the patriarch faction as _res judicata_ in all other proceedings. It is therefore submitted that this principal defect for having treated the judgment in the _**Vattipanam case**_ as _res judicata_ for the _**Samudayam**_ suit of 1959 subsequently has resulted in the RP No.705/2020 in WA No.1046/2020 & WA No.1046/2020 **==> picture [33 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** judgment in _**K.S.Varghese**_ (supra). Learned counsel therefore submits that as far as Mulanthuruty Marthoma church is concerned, the judgment in _**K.S.Varghese**_ (supra) is not binding and the said findings are not _res judicata_ in the proceedings which are pending as far as the said church is concerned. It is pointed out that the entire issue requires to be reconsidered treating that _**K.S Varghese's case**_ (supra) or the earlier Apex Court judgments have no bearing in the case relating to Mulanthuruthy church. An argument note has been submitted narrating the points for review. For easy reference, we refer to paragraph 17 of the argument note, which reads as under: _“17. The order dated 12.8.2020 of which review is sought is one rendered void ab initio, still bom, one which never existed in the eye of law for the following reasons:_ _(a) This Court (DB of Justice Shaffique) had no jurisdiction to order the Collector to take forceful possession of the church because the appeal which was before it was in challenge of an order which was appealable. The court could not have entertained an appeal against an order of the Ld. Single judge (A. Muhamed Mustaque, J) directing a copy of the contempt of court case to be given to the ASG. (b) Taking forceful possession of a church against the wishes of the 3500 odd families (parishioners) involves_ RP No.705/2020 in WA No.1046/2020 & WA No.1046/2020 **==> picture [33 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** _infringement of their legal and fundamental rights. Therefore, before any order, whatsoever, could have been passed, and particularly of the nature the court has passed, namely, taking forceful possession by brutal force, could not have been passed without notice to the trustees who were parties to the proceedings. This Court's order, therefore, is one rendered void ab initio, not merely erroneous. Failure to observe principles of natural justice is an error which is so fundamental and is one concerning the very jurisdiction of this court._ _(c) This Court's jurisdiction (DB headed by Justice Shaffique) to deal with the case, assuming it ever had, has been lost since the institution of R.P No. 6/2020 by the Petitioners seeking review of the decree dated 25.10.2019 of the District Court in I.A. No. 624/2007 in OS No.1/1124 ME. The review which the Petitioners have filed is a statutory right in terms of Section 114 of the CPC read with Order 47 Rule 1 thereof. The court has ordered notice to Respondents, notice Bata has already been filed, next date of hearing is 22 10.2020. The only court which has jurisdiction to deal with the controversy is the 1[st] Addl.District Court, Ernakulam."_ 12. On the other hand, learned senior counsel Sri.S.Sreekumar appearing on behalf of the petitioners would submit that the review petition is totally meaningless. Similar contentions have been raised in other case as well and as per the directions issued in _**K.S.Varghese**_ (supra), learned Single Judge RP No.705/2020 in WA No.1046/2020 & WA No.1046/2020 -: 17 :- was justified in issuing the directions which are being impugned. It is pointed out that at this juncture, it is not open for the review petitioners to contend that the judgment of the Apex Court is void and not binding. 13. As already stated, the appeal which we are concerned arises from an order of a learned Single Judge in a contempt case. It is contended by the review petitioners that in the judgments of the Apex Court referred above, the right of the patriarch faction especially regarding the continuous faith in Patriarch of Antioch as the spiritual guide, has not been considered. We do not think that we will be justified in considering any such plea in this proceedings. The allegation that the judgments of the Apex Court is not binding does not deserve any consideration. It can only be categorized as a fervent attempt to reopen closed matters and to delay the due process of law. It is after the judgment in _**K.S.Varghese**_ (supra), a petition for clarification was sought for before the Apex Court which was decided as per order dated 19/6/2020 in _**Varghese v. St.Peter's and St.Paul's Syrian Orthodox Church**_ [2020 (4) KLT 805 (SC)]. The said order reads RP No.705/2020 in WA No.1046/2020 & WA No.1046/2020 **==> picture [33 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ## as under; _“Heard learned senior counsel for the applicant(s)._ _The following prayers have been made in the application:_ _“a) Clarify that the State of Kerala, Respondents herein/similarly situated members and leaders of the Orthodox faction has to implement the findings of K.S.Varghese case at Para 183 Sub Para VII, XII, XVI, XVII, XXII, and XXVIII, reported in 2017 (3) KLT 261 (SC) = (2017)15 SCC 333._ _(b) clarify that, all the parties concerned shall not have any right to take any coercive steps or evict any parish members from their parish churches under the pretext of execution proceedings or due to his continuous faith in the Patriarch of Antioch as his spiritual head._ _c) Clarify that, all the concerned parties are bound to take appropriate steps for an amicable settlement, by way of a mediation, in tune with the earlier settlements arrived by the other individual churches, 66 by way of separation of the factions/members with respect to the number of members/strength of each faction in each parish churches, in the interest of justice,_ _d) Clarify that the spiritual supreme head of the Malankara church is the present Patriarch of Antioch as per the clause 1 (one) of the 1934 constitution and as per the verdict of K.S.Varghese case in Para 133 and 140 reported in 2017 (3) KLT 261 (SC) = (2017)15 SCC 333 and clarify that, all members of the Malankara_ RP No.705/2020 in WA No.1046/2020 & WA No.1046/2020 **==> picture [33 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** _church, shall not have any right to denounce, repudiate or dispute the traditionally elected Patriarch of Antioch who is the spiritual head of the Universal Orthodox church._ _e) Clarify that the illegal insertions/Manipulations made in the 1934 constitution which are not seen in the original manuscript and the first print of the 1934 pamphlet constitution, are null and void._ _f) Clarify that, the State Government has to allow the parish members to conduct burial services and its memorial services in their respective parish 67 churches and its cemeteries according to the will and wish of deceased person._ _g) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to provide a clarification scheme for the redressal of the genuine grievances of lakhs of parish members who were evicted from their parish churches since they continue to believe in the spiritual supremacy of the Patriarch of Antioch._ _h) Clarify that, all the parties concerned will have to conduct a referendum, on the basis of the original 1934 constitution, in the individual parish churches for_ _the Selection of the Administrative hierarchy sacramental and liturgical leadership of the individual parish churches according to their faith and tradition since the orthodox faction is using illegally altered/fabricated version of the 1934 constitution which is deviated from the basic faith, 806 tradition and discipline underlined in the original 1934_ RP No.705/2020 in WA No.1046/2020 & WA No.1046/2020 **==> picture [33 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** _constitution and the fabricated constitution is used as an instrument for the eviction of the parish members from their mother churches due to their continuing faith in the spiritual supremacy and the 68 ecclesiastical continuity of the Patriarch of Antioch in the community._ _i) Any other clarification/order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the applicants/petitioners/Appellants._ _It is clearly an effort for violating the order passed by this Court and no such prayer(s) can be entertained, in view of the judgment dated 03.07.2017 passed by this Court in K.S.Varghese & Ors. v. St.Peter’s Paul’s Syrian Orth. & Ors. (2017 (3) KLT 261 (SC))._ _Consequently, these applications have been misconceived and devoid of merits and are hereby dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand), to be deposited with the Supreme Court Employees Mutual Welfare fund, within a period of six weeks from today.”_ Therefore, this is a case in which the patriarch faction has almost lost on all grounds available to them and the present attempt by filing the review petition is only an abuse of process. We are not satisfied with any of the arguments raised by the counsel for the review petitioners warranting interference by exercising the RP No.705/2020 in WA No.1046/2020 & WA No.1046/2020 **==> picture [33 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** review jurisdiction and, for that reason, there is no necessity to restore possession of the Church to the patriarch faction. Hence, the Review Petition stands dismissed. 14. As far as the writ appeal is concerned, the District Collector is in possession of the key of the church and he is in control of the premises as well. In the light of the direction issued by the learned Single Judge in its order dated 29/7/2020, the District Collector shall hand over key of the church to the complainants in the contempt case within a period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, which, of course, will be subject to any orders that may be passed in the regular appeal filed against order dated 25/10/2019 or in OP(Civil) No. 57469/2019 or even in the review petition filed as RP No.6/2020 against the order dated 25/10/2019 in IA No. 624/2007 in OS No.1/1124(ME). 15. As already directed by the learned Single Judge, police shall render necessary police protection to ensure that no law and order situation or obstruction is being created by the patriarch faction during the transition period or subsequent thereto. It shall RP No.705/2020 in WA No.1046/2020 & WA No.1046/2020 -: 22 :- be open for the petitioners to seek further orders from the learned Single Judge, if necessary. Writ appeal is therefore disposed of accordingly. **Sd/-** ## **A.M.SHAFFIQUE** **JUDGE** ## **Sd/-** Rp **GOPINATH P. JUDGE** After delivering the judgment, the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners sought for a certificate for filing appeal before the Apex Court under Article 134A of the Constitution of India. 2. Having regard to the aforesaid factual circumstances and the law laid down by the Apex Court, we do not think that any substantial question of general importance requiring authoritative pronouncement by the Apex Court, has arisen in the case. RP No.705/2020 in WA No.1046/2020 & WA No.1046/2020 -: 23 :- Hence, the request is rejected. Rp **Sd/A.M.SHAFFIQUE JUDGE Sd/GOPINATH P. JUDGE**