RP Nos. 406 of 2020 and 453 of 2020 in WP(C).33316/2019 — Mathai Vaniyath & Others v. Marthoman Church, Mulamthuruthy; E.I. Varkichan & Others v. Marthoman Church, Mulamthuruthy

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE** **TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JULY 2020 / 6TH SRAVANA, 1942** ## **RP.No.406 OF 2020 IN WP(C).33316/2019** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 33316/2019(L) DATED 18.05.2020** **-----** ## **REVIEW PETITIONER/S:** - **1 MATHAI VANIYATH, AGED 68 YEARS, S/O. POULOSE VANIYATH HOUSE, MULANTHURUTHY P.O., ANDETHUMUGAL, KARICODE, PIN-682 314.** - **2 K.T.CHACKOCHAN, AGED 70 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS, KANNAPPILLI HOUSE, MULANTHURUTHY P.O, PIN-682 314.** - **3 VARGHESE THACHAMPURATH, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O. VARGHESE, THACHAMPURATH HOUSE, KARICODE, MULANTHURUTHY P.O., PIN- 682 314. BY ADV. SRI.SAJI VARGHESE KAKKATTUMATTATHIL** - **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**MARTHOMAN CHURCH, MULAMTHURUTHY,**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS TRUSTEE, K.K. JIMMY THARAKAN, S/O.KORA,**| ||**AGED 67 YEARS, KALLARAKKAL, MULANTHURUTHY P.O., PIN-682**| ||**314.**| |**2**|**SHAJAN JACOB, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.JACOB, PALLIPPURAM HOUSE,**| ||**MULANTHURUTHY P.O., PIN- 682 314.**| |**3**|**EBIN MATHAI, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.IYPE MATHEW, PONODATH HOUSE,**| ||**AMBALLOOR P.O., PIN- 682 315.**| |**4**|**FR.GEO GEORGE, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.GEORGE, VICAR, MARTHOMAN**| ||**CHURCH, MULANTHURUTHY P.O., PIN- 682 314.**| |**5**|**FR.DAVID THANKACHAN, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.**| ||**THANKACHAN, ASSISTANT VICAR, MARTHOMAN CHURCH, MULANTHURUTHY**| ||**P.O., PIN- 682 314.**| |**6**|**FR.THOMAS K. ELIAS, AGED 43 YEARS,**| ||**S/O.ELIAS, ASSISTANT VICAR, MARTHOMAN CHURCH, MULANTHURUTHY**| ||**P.O, PIN- 682 314.**| ## **RP.No.406 OF 2020 IN WP(C).33316/2019** - **7 FR.ALEX P. GEORGE, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.GEORGE, ASSISTANT VICAR, MARTHOMAN CHURCH, MULANTHURUTHY P.O, PIN- 682 314.** - **8 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.** - **9 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, ERNAKULAM - 682 030.** - **10 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** - **11 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, ERNAKULAM RURAL, ALUVA- 683 101.** - **12 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN- 686 661.** - **13 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MULANTHURUTHY, MULANTHURUTHY P.O., PIN- 682 314.** - **14 JOSEPH MAR GREGORIOUS, METROPOLITAN TRUSTEE, KYAMTA SEMINARY, THIRUVANKULAM P.O., PIN- 682 305.** - **15 FR.SHAJI MAMOOTTIL, MAMOOTTIL HOUSE, PERUMPILLY P.O, MULANTHURUTHY, PIN- 682 314.** - **16 FR. BABY CHAMAKKALA, CHAMAKKALAYIL HOUSE, MULANTHURUTHY P.O., PIN- 682 314.** - **17 FR. SHAMMI JOHN, ERAMANGALATH HOUSE, VETTICAL P.O, MULANTHURUTHY, PIN- 682 314.** - **18 FR.VARGHESE PULAYATH, PULAYATH HOUSE, PERUMPILLY P.O, MULANTHURUTHY, PIN- 682 314.** **BY SRI.K V SOHAN, STATE ATTORNEY** **BY ADV.P.MARTIN JOSE** **THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.07.2020, ALONG WITH R.P.NO.453/2020, THE COURT ON 28.07.2020 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE** **TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JULY 2020 / 6TH SRAVANA, 1942** ## **RP.No.453 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 33316/2019** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 33316/2019(L) DATED 18.05.2020** **-------** ## **REVIEW PETITIONER/S:** - **1 E.I.VARKICHAN, AGED 67 YEARS, S/O.ITTEERA, EDAYATH VELIYIL (H), KARIKKODE, MULANTHURUTHY P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN682314.** - **2 ABBY V.A., AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.V.V.ELDHOSE, VALIYAVEETTIL (H), VETTICKAL P.O., MULANTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682314.** - **3 JIBY JOY, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.P.V.JOY, PULIKUZHIYIL (H), VETTICKAL P.O., MULANTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682314.** - **4 K.V.BABU, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.LATE K.C.VARGHESE, KOLLAMKULATHIL (H), THALAKODE P.O., MULANTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682314.** - **5 JACOB E.C., AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.LATE ABRAHAM, ENNIRIYIL (H), THALAKODE P.O., MULANTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682314.** - **6 JOSE T.V., AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.VARGHESE, THACHAMPURATHU (H), PULICKAMALY P.O., MULANTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682314.** - **7 JOY N.J., AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.JOSE, NJARAKKATTIL (H), PULICKAMALY P.O., MULANTHURUTHY P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN-682314.** - **8 ALIAS M.V., AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.VARKEY, MORATTIL (H), PORUMPALLY P.O., MULANTHURUTHY P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN682314.** - **9 SEBIN M.M., AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.MICHEAL, MAKKAPARAMBIL(H), MULANTHURUTHY P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN-682314.** - **10 JOHNY P.K., AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.KURIAKOSE, PARACKAL (H), PANGARAPALLY P.O., MULANTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682314.** ## **RP.No.453 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 33316/2019** - **11 JOMON THOMAS, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.E.J.JOHN, KARIKKODU P.O., MULANTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM , PIN-682314.** **BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.) SRI.ALEX.M.SCARIA SMT.SARITHA THOMAS** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 MARTHOMAN CHURCH, MULANTHURUTHY, REPRESENTED BY ITS TRUSTEE, K.K.JIMMY THARAKAN, S/O.KORA, AGED 66 YEARS, KALLARAKKAL, MULANTHURUTHY P.O., PIN-682314.** - **2 SHAJAN JACOB, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O.JACOB, PALLIPURAM HOUSE, MULAMTHURUTHY P.O., PIN-682314.** - **3 EBIN MATHAI, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.IYPE MATHEW, PONODATH HOUSE, AMBALLOOR P.O., PIN-682315.** - **4 FR.GEO GEORGE, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.GEORGE, VICAR, MARTHOMAN CHURCH, MULAMTHURUTHY P.O., PIN-682314.** - **5 FR.DAVID THANKACHAN, AGED 37 YEARS S/O.THANKACHAN, ASSISTANT VICAR, MARTHOMAN CHURCH, MULAMTHURUTHY P.O., PIN-682314.** - **6 FR.THOMAS K. ELIAS, AGED 43 YEARS S/O.ELIAS, ASSISTANT VICAR, MARTHOMAN CHURCH, MULAMTHURUTHY P.O., PIN-682314.** - **7 FR. ALEX P. GEORGE, AGED 37 YEARS S/O.GEORGE, ASSISTANT VICAR, MARTHOMAN CHURCH, MULAMTHURUTHY P.O., PIN-682314.** - **8 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** - **9 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, ERNAKULAM682030.** - **10 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** - **11 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, ERNAKULAM RURAL, ALUVA-683101.** - **12 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MUVATTUPUZHA-686661.** ## **RP.No.453 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 33316/2019** - **13 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MULAMTHURUTHY, MULAMTHURUTHY P.O., PIN-682314.** - **14 JOSEPH MAR GREGORIOUS, METROPOLITAN TRUSTEE, KYMATA SEMINARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM P.O., PIN-682305.** - **15 FR.SHAJI MAMOOTTIL, MAMOOTTIL HOUSE, PERUMPILLY P.O., MULAMTHURUTHY, PIN-682314.** - **16 FR.BABY CHAMAKKALA, CHAMAKKALAYIL HOUSE, MULAMTHURUTHY, MULAMTHURUTHY P.O., PIN-682314.** - **17 FR. SHAMMY JOHN, ERAMNGALATH HOUSE, VETTICAL P.O., MULAMTHURUTHY, PIN-682314.** - **18 FR. VARGHESE PULAYATH, PULAYATH HOUSE, PERUMPILLY P.O., MULAMTHURUTHY, PIN-682314.** - **19 MATHAI VANITYATH, VANIYATH HOUSE, MULAMTHURUTHY P.O., ANDETHUMUGAL, KARIKODE, PIN-682314.** - **20 K.T.CHACKOCHAN, KANNAPPILLIL HOUSE, MULAMTHURUTHY P.O., MULAMTHURUTHY, PIN-682314.** - **21 VARGHESE THACHAMPURATH,THACHAMPURATH HOUSE, KARICODE, MULAMTHURUTHY P.O., PIN-682314.** **BY SRI.K V SOHAN, STATE ATTORNEY** - **BY ADV.P.MARTIN JOSE** - **BY ADV.SAJI VARGHESE KAKKATTUMATTATHIL** - **BY ADV.SHIBU JOSEPH** **THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.07.2020, ALONG WITH R.P.NO.406/2020, THE COURT ON 28.07.2020 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## O R D E R ## **Dated this the 28[th] Day of July, 2020** (R.P.No.406/2020 & R.P.No.453/2020) These review petitions are taken up together for disposal, though these cases were heard at different times. This is for the simple reason that both review petitions are arising out of the same judgment. 2. In the writ petition the main dispute was based on a factional feud in regard to the affairs of Mulanthuruthy Marthoma Church in Mulanthuruthy Village. In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in **K.S.Varghese & Ors. v. St.Peter's & St.Paul's Syrian Orthodox Church & Ors. [(2017) 15 SCC 333]** this Court granted police protection to the writ petitioners who represent the faction, following the 1934 Constitution to conduct religious services in the church and also to manage the affairs of the church. It was further ordered that if necessary, the management shall be taken over and entrusted to the writ petitioners. **(R.P.No.406/2020 & R.P.No.453/2020)** ## **-:2:-** 3. Respondents 12 to 14 in the writ petition came up with a review petition which was numbered as R.P.No. 406/2020. According to them, based on the decree passed in a scheme suit O.S.No.1/1124 (M.E) on the file of the District Court Ernakulam, the elected trustees constituted pursuant to the scheme alone are entitled to administrate the church. Therefore, it was argued that overreaching the decree of the civil court, this Court issued the direction unsettling the civil court decree. 4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the review petitioners in R.P.No.406/2020 further argued that this Court granted reliefs which were never sought in the writ petition. The learned Counsel pointed out to the reliefs sought for in the writ petition and submitted that the reliefs were only in regard to religious services and no prayers were sought for administration and management of the church. 5. Certain parishioners approached this Court with leave to file a review petition. They were not a party to the writ petition. Leave was granted. The review petition is **(R.P.No.406/2020 & R.P.No.453/2020)** ## **-:3:-** numbered as R.P.No.453/2020. The parishioners' case is that there cannot be any dispute in regard to the governance of the church in accordance with the 1934 Constitution. They seek review pointing out to the fact that parishioners were not given the opportunity to voice their views before the Court in this police protection matter. It is submitted that the directions in the writ petition would tantamount to investing absolute right to the writ petitioners to manage the affairs of the church ignoring the rights of the parishioners. It is submitted that the 1934 Constitution itself recognises the role of parishioners to have their presence in the management and administration of the affairs of the church. The learned counsel for the review petitioners pointed out to the parish assembly and its function as referred in the 1934 Constitution. It is submitted that the Parish Managing Committee formed from parish assembly which is the governing body in regard to the administration of the church. 6. Admittedly, there was a scheme suit and based on the scheme suit, the affairs of the church were managed **(R.P.No.406/2020 & R.P.No.453/2020)** ## **-:4:-** including the religious services. The preliminary decree of the suit was passed on 11.12.1959. The governance was in accordance with the scheme. Based on the Apex Court judgment in **K.S.Varghese** case ( _supra_ ) which would govern this church also, operation of the scheme became redundant. The declaration of law in the Apex Court judgment would govern the matter. Therefore, an application was filed before the District Court, Ernakulam, as I.A.No.624/2007 to substitute the scheme by the 1934 Constitution that was allowed by the District Court as per its order dated 25/10/2019. That order is produced as Exhibit P9 along with the writ petition. 7. In the light of the fact that the scheme has been substituted by the 1934 Constitution, the affairs of the Church will have to be in accordance with the 1934 Constitution. Nobody has a case that the Parish Managing Committee has been constituted in accordance with the 1934 Constitution. Any committee that exists prior to **K.S.Varghese** case can no longer claim any right to manage the affairs based on the scheme. It is in such background **(R.P.No.406/2020 & R.P.No.453/2020)** ## **-:5:-** this Court has to address the issue raised by the review petitioners. 8. The review petition filed by respondents 12 to 14 is mainly referring to the reliefs sought in the writ petition. The right of the contesting respondents to manage the affairs cannot be recognized in the light of **K.S.Varghese** case. Nobody is having a case that any parish committee has been constituted in accordance with the 1934 Constitution. The directions in the judgment is only to the effect to ensure that the affairs of the church be managed by the writ petitioners and no one else. This Court had not issued any direction other than to secure the above purpose. At any rate, the contesting respondents have no right to object the authority of the writ petitioners to govern the church in accordance with the 1934 Constitution. They admittedly belong to the other faction of the church whose right of governance have been repelled by the Apex Court in **K.S.Varghese** case. Therefore, this review petition, R.P.No.406/2020 is only to be dismissed. Further, no **(R.P.No.406/2020 & R.P.No.453/2020)** ## **-:6:-** grounds for review have been made out by the review petitioners. 9. In regard to the parishioners claim in review petition No.453/2020 that the religious services are not separable from the administration of the church and that the parishioners have every right to involve in the affairs of the church appears to be a strange argument made before this Court clandestinely to support those who lost in the litigation. It is argued by the learned Senior Counsel, Shri. George Poonthottam that the direction in the judgment amounts to recovery of possession of the church and handing over of the same to the writ petitioners. While, Shri Alex M.Scaria, learned counsel who assisted the learned Senior Counsel for the review petitioners in R.P.No.453/2020 referring to various provisions in the 1934 Constitution also extrapolated and supplemented the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel and submitted that for an effective discharge of administration of the church, the role of parishioners is inseparable and, therefore, this Court ought to have recognised the parish committee's role before **(R.P.No.406/2020 & R.P.No.453/2020)** ## **-:7:-** issuing any direction. The learned counsel further submitted that re-conciliatory approach rather than an adversarial approach should be the concern of the Court in a matter like this. 10. The parishioners remedy to form a committee lies elsewhere. This Court had not foreclosed the formation of a parish assembly or committee in accordance with the 1934 Constitution. The followers of the 1934 Constitution can protect their right to have such an assembly or committee in accordance with the 1934 Constitution. If they are really concerned about the rule of law, in normal course they are expected to support the Vicar to manage the affairs of the church. But strangely they have come up with a review petition. Their prayers in the review petition are also strange. They seek conduct of election by inviting both factions to participate. These prayers are outside the ambit of the writ petition inasmuch as that was not an issue in the writ petition. The real concern of this Court was to uphold the rule of law ensuring that the church is governed in accordance with the 1934 Constitution by persons who are **(R.P.No.406/2020 & R.P.No.453/2020)** ## **-:8:-** competent to manage. The Vicar can very well take an initiative for constituting a committee in accordance with the 1934 Constitution. That it is up to him. If he fails, the parishioners, who are following the 1934 Constitution, free to move the civil court. When the affairs of the church were put into peril due to the factional fight, this Court interfered to uphold the rule of law. The prayers in the review petition, R.P.No.453/2020 are beyond the scope of review. Therefore, R.P.No.453/2020 also has to be dismissed. In the light of the above, both the review petitions are dismissed. Sd/- ## **A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE** ms/ln