Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 1807
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
M.M. SUNDRESH, N. SATHISH KUMAR, JJ.
Rt.Rev.S.E.C.Devasahayam, The Bishop of CSI Tuticorin-Nazareth Diocese, Tuticorin - Appellant
Vs.
R. Stanley Vedamanickam and Ors. - Respondents
Contempt Appeal (MD) Nos. 2 to 4 of 2018 and Letters Patent Appeal (MD) No. 1 of 2018 and C.M.P.(MD) Nos. 6064, 6065, 6541 and 8742 of 2018
Decided On : 17-09-2018
For the Appellant : Mr. V. Lakshmi Narayanan, For Mr. J.Kingsly Solomon
For the Respondent: Mr. T.R. Rajaraman, For Mr. V.Rajiv Rufus, Mr. R.Asokan, Mr. C.Dhanaseelan, Mr. Pethu Rajesh, Mr. G.Prabhu Rajadurai
Headnote:
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 136 - Civil Procedure Code -1908, Order 39, Rule 2A, Section 100-A - Government of India Act – Section 107 and 108 - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Section 19 - Respondents 1 to 4 herein filed a Suit on the file of Sub Court, seeking declaratory relief that they are members and are entitled to contest election and for a permanent injunction restraining defendants therein, their men and agents from preventing the plaintiffs from contesting the elections and for a mandatory injunction to include the name of the plaintiffs in the voter list of the respective churches - Suit was initiated, since their voting rights were removed by the decision of the Executive Committee of the Diocese on - Learned counsel for the respondents has made a strong objections that, though, an election only to be conducted there is no urgency in the matter - This court is of the view that, entire process of inclusion of members is - Therefore, in this application a strong objections made by the learned counsel for the respondents – Held, It is to be noted that if the order of the Court is clear and unambiguous and not capable of more than one interpretation, then it can be said that the disobedience or breach would amount to contempt - It is also well settled that power to punish a person in contempt is no doubt a powerful weapon in the hands of the judiciary - The same cannot be used, unless the Court satisfies beyond doubt that the person has deliberately and intentionally violated the order of the Court - Learned Single Judge in entirety even without any substantive relief being sought in the main suit cannot be valid in the eye of law - In such circumstances, we are of the view that every election dispute gives rise to a fresh cause of action - If anybody challenges such action relating to the fresh cause of action, there must be a fresh proceedings by initiating a suit - They cannot assail every election by taking advantage of the pendency of the revision, which relates to the election - In the case on hand, election of more than Pastorates is also set aside, without hearing any of the elected candidates - Elections have been conducted as per the rules - Relief granted in the revision and other petitions is beyond the scope of the very suit itself - Hence, we are inclined to hold that the order of the learned Single Judge in setting aside the elections of the Pastorate Committee in its entirety is liable to be interfered with - In fine, Contempt Appeal, are allowed and the judgment of the learned Single Judge punishing the appellants are set aside - Likewise, L.P.A.(MD)No.1 is also allowed - Consequently, the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
Contempt Appeal (MD)No.2 of 2018 is directed against the order of a learned Single Judge this Court dated 04.07.2018, made in C.M.P.(MD)No.4773 of 2018 in C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.820 of 2015.
2. Contempt Appeal (MD)No.3 of 2018 is directed against the order of a learned Single Judge this Court dated 04.07.2018, made in C.M.P.(MD)No. 4775 of 2018 in C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.820 of 2015.
3. Contempt Appeal (MD)No.4 of 2018 is directed against the order of a learned Single Judge this Court dated 04.07.2018, made in C.M.P.(MD)No. 4773 of 2018 in C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.820 of 2015.
4. Letters Patent Appeal (MD)No.1 of 2018 is directed against the order of a learned Single Judge this Court dated 04.07.2018, made in C.M.P.(MD)No.5095 of 2018 in C.M.P.(MD)No. 4775 of 2018 in C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.820 of 2015.
5. Before going into the merits of the appeals, the facts, which lead to the filing of these appeals, are relevant and extracted below :
The respondents 1 to 4 herein filed a Suit in O.S.No.120 of 2013 on the file of Sub Court, Tuticorin, seeking declaratory relief that they are the members of Tuticorin Nazareth Diocese and are entitled to contest the election and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein, their men and agents from preventing the plaintiffs from contesting the 2013 elections and for a mandatory injunction to include the name of the plaintiffs in the voter list of the respective churches. The above suit was initiated, since their voting rights were removed by the decision of the Executive Committee of the Diocese on 30.03.2009.
6. In pending suit, an application in I.A.No.359 of 2013 was filed for restraining the respondents therein, their men and agents from removing the names of the petitioners therein from the voter list and also preventing the petitioners therein from contesting the forthcoming Diocese elections till the disposal of the suit.
7. The above application was allowed by the learned Subordinate Judge on 28.05.2013, as against which, the appellant and the respondents 5 and 6 in Cont.A.(MD)No.2 of 2018, filed (*)C.M.A.No.18 of 2013 on the file of the learned First Additional District Judge, Thoothukudi. Pending appeal, the respondents 1 to 4 herein were permitted to vote and also they participated in the election conducted for the period 2013-2017. Subsequently, the appeal was allowed on 17.11.2014, as against which, the respondents 1 to 4 filed C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.820 of 2015. Pending revision, some Miscellaneous Petitions have been filed. The orders passed in the Miscellaneous Petitions are under challenge in these proceedings.
8. Pending revision, the period of Office Bearers elected in 2013 came to an end. Accordingly, the Diocese Committee called for a fresh election and the schedule was released on 14.04.2018. As per Schedule, (*)106 Pastorates, which constitute the CSI at Tuticorin-Nazareth, commenced the preparation of voter list on 16.04.2018. Fortnight after the release of the Schedule, the respondents 1 to 4 filed an application for injunction in a pending Civil Revision Petition on 27.04.2018 seeking the following relief’s :
"Interim injunction restraining the respondents from preventing the petitioners from participating, contesting and voting in the Diocese Election 2018 of the CSI Nazareth Diocese either by not including the petitioners name in the voter list or otherwise, pending disposal of the above C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.820 of 2015."
9. The learned Single Judge on 28.04.2018 in C.M.P.(MD)No.4411 of 2018, passed the following order :
"6. The present C.M.P.(MD)No. 4411 of 2018 has been filed by the petitioners is only sought for participating, contesting and voting the diocese election 2018 which was proposed to be held on 17.06.2018.
7. The learned counsel for the respondents has made a strong objections that, though, an election only to be conducted on 17.06.2018, there is n
