IMPORTANT POINT
If a person or authority is “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, admittedly a writ petition under Article 226 would lie against such a person or body. However, we may add that even in such cases writ would not lie to enforce private law rights. There are a catena of judgments on this aspect and it is not necessary to refer to those judgments as that is the basic principle of judicial review of an action under the administrative law. The reason is obvious. A private law is that part of a legal system which is a part of common law that involves relationships between individuals, such as law of contract or torts. Therefore, even if writ petition would be maintainable against an authority, which is “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution, before issuing any writ, particularly writ of mandamus, the Court has to satisfy that action of such an authority, which is challenged, is in the domain of public law as distinguished from private law.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioners had filed the writ petition when their marriage, which was proposed to be solemnized on 28.12.2015 at the 1st respondent Church, was refused to be solemnized pursuant to Exhibit P8 communication received from the South Kerala Diocese of the Church of South India. The petitioners therefore pray for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash Exhibit P8 and for a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to solemnize the marriage of the petitioners on 28.12.2015 itself. The interim prayer to direct respondents 1 and 2 to solemnize the marriage on 28.12.2015 itself was declined and therefore the marriage did not take place as announced.

2. Sri.Vinod S.Bhat, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the marriage of the petitioners was subsequently registered under the Special Marriage Act but, the question as to whether the Church or the Diocese, of which the petitioners are members, can refuse to solemnize their marriage require consideration.

3. The essential facts involved in this writ petition are as follows:

The 1st petitioner is a member of the 1st respondent Church and had submitted an application for marriage. The 2nd petitioner, who is a member of the CSI Church, Thenguvilakuzhi, had also submitted an application for marriage. Thereafter, pre-marriage counselling of the petitioners was conducted from 1.10.2015 to 3.10.2015 and certificate was issued evidencing successful completion of the pre-marriage counselling. Thereafter, the petitioners remitted Rs.1,000/- each at their pastorates for the purpose of publishing/announcing notice of their intended marriage during the prayer services on the three succeeding Sundays. Accordingly, notice regarding the proposed marriage of the petitioners was read out on 8.11.2015 and 15.11.2015. At that point of time, the additional 4th respondent raised objections against the proposed marriage and filed a complaint before the ecclesiastical court alleging that the 1st petitioner had promised to marry the 4th respondent and had thereby deceived her into having sexual intercourse with the 1st petitioner and that when the 4th respondent realised the deception, she had filed a complaint before the Balaramapuram Police Station, which had resulted in Crime No.573 of 2015 being registered against the 1st petitioner for the offence under Section 376 IPC. On receipt of the objection, the 1st petitioner was directed to appear before the ecclesiastical court of the Diocese. The 1st petitioner appeared and submitted his explanation stating that a patently false complaint had been filed by the 4th respondent out of personal animosity. By Exhibit P8, the ecclesiastical court upheld the 4th respondent's objection and decided that the marriage between the petitioners cannot be solemnized in the 1st respondent Church.

4. According to the petitioners, solemnization of marriages by the 1st respondent Church is subject to the provisions of the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872 and the Constitution of the CSI Churches. As such, the 1st respondent is exercising a public function and hence is amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners allege that Exhibit P8 decision is actuated by mala fides, in as much as the members of the Committee which had taken Exhibit P8 decision had personal animosity against the petitioners. It is contended that neither under the provisions of Chapter XII of the Constitution of the CSI Churches dealing with marriage of the members of the CSI Church nor the provisions of the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872, the 1st respondent has the authority to refuse solemnization of marriage alleging moral turpitude on one of the parties to the marriage.

5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent, in his capacity as District Secretary, CSI District Church, Balaramapuram. In the counter affidavit it is contended that the Church, while solemnizing a marriage, is not performing an