The exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is subject to limitations, and a writ of mandamus should be issued against a State or public authorities, not for private law remedies. The High Court should not entertain matters involving private law remedies, and police protection cannot be ordered as a substitute for civil suits.

JUDGMENT

S.B. SINHA, J.

1. Dispute between the parties centres round the management of a large number of Churches known as "Syrian Churches". The present controversy arises in regard to the interpretation of a decision of this Court in Most. Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan & Ors. v. Moran Mar Marthoma & Ors.1. A writ petition was filed by the appellants herein before the Kerala High Court, praying inter alia, for the following reliefs:

"a. In the above facts and circumstances of the case this Honble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or directions commanding respondents 1 to 4 and their subordinates to give effective and adequate police protection to the First Petitioner to exercise his rights, duties and privileges as The Catholicos cum Malankara Metropolitan of the Malankara Church with respect to the Parishes mentioned in Exhibit P4 and Institutions of the Malankara Church without any threat or obstruction from . Respondents 5 to 13 or their agents or servants in any manner.

b. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or directions commanding respondents 1 to 4 to give effective and adequate police protection to Petitioners to exercise their rights, duties and privileges as Metropolitans of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church under the First Petitioner without any threat or obstruction from the Respondents 5 to 13 or their agents or servants in any manner.

c. To Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or directions commanding respondents 1 to 4 to give effective and adequate police protection to other Bishops similarly placed as well as to the faithful members of the Malankara Church for the purpose of participating in the conduct of religious services in the said Parish Churches of the Malankara Church by petitioners without any threat or obstruction from Respondents 5 - 13 or their agents or servants in any manner.

d. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding respondents 1 to 4 to take steps to see that respondents 5 to 13 do not enter into any of the churches of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church mentioned in Exhibit P4 and Institutions of the Malankara Church in any capacity either as Catholicos, Bishop, Priest or in any other manner.

e. Issue appropriate directions to Respondents 1 to 4 to restrain respondents 5 to 13 from in any way obstructing the petitioners from exercising the powers in accordance with the provisions of 1934 Constitution of the Malankara Church with respect to the Parish C.hurches of the Malankara Church mentioned in Exhibit P4 and Institutions of the Church.

f. Direct respondents 5 to 13 to pay the cost of this petition to the petitioners."

2. One of the contentions which has been raised before the High Court was the maintainability of the writ petition on the premise that it could not have gone into the disputed questions of fact and, particularly, the application of the said judgment in relation to Parish Churches. Appellants, however, raised a contention that the writ petition was maintainable as the State and its officers having regard to the provisions contained in Article 144 of the Constitution of India are duty bound to give effect to the decision of this Court.

3. The High Court in view of the rival contention of the parties formulated two questions for its consideration:

"1. Are the contesting respondents bound by the judgment of their lordships of the Supreme Court in Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan v. Moran Mar Marthoma (JT 1995 (5)SC 1)?

2. Is a case for the issue of a writ of mandamus as prayed for by the petitioners made out?"

4. Upon noticing the contentions raised on behalf of the parties, including the one that the appellants herein had raised claims over the properties of the aforesaid Churches; in relation whereto there exists serious dispute and about 200 civil suits are pending in different courts in the State of Kerala.

5. The High Court, however, went