Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 226
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR &
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 17TH KARTHIKA, 1943 WA NO. 1445 OF 2021 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 05.10.2021 IN WP(C)
1409/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/20TH RESPONDENT:
P.K.SCARIA, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O. KUNJAVARA, PARAYIL HOUSE, PEECHANIKKADU, P.O. PULIYANAM, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM-683 572 BY ADVS.
S.K.PREMRAJ C.ANILKUMAR (KALLESSERIL)
V.SARITHA P.M.MANASH REENU KURIAN NEEMA NOOR MOHAMED JAIN VARGHESE NAVAS JAN A.
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 19 AND 21 TO 29:
1 ST. GEORGE TABORE CHURCH, PEECHANIKKADU, P.O. PULIYANAM, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM-683 572, REPRESENTED BY ITS TRUSTEE K.M. ELDHO, S/O. MATHEW, AGED 53 YEARS, KAIPARAMBATTU HOUSE, P.O. PULIYANAM, ERNAKULAM-683 572
2 FR. T.V. ELDHOSE, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. T.V. VARGHESE, THELAPPILLY HOUSE, P.O. KORATTY EAST, THRISSUR-680 308
3 RAJU VARGHESE, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O. VARKEY PILLAI, KAIPARAMBATTU HOUSE, P.O. PULIYANAM, ERNAKULAM-683 572
4 M.P. MATHAI, AGED 67 YEARS, S/O. POULOSE, MOOLAN HOUSE, P.O. PULIYANAM, ERNAKULAM-683 572
5 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
6 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682 031
7 STATE POLICE CHIEF, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, TIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
8 DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE (RURAL), SH 16, OPP. POWER HOUSE, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM-683 101.
9 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, POWER HOUSE JUNCTION, SUB JAIL ROAD, PERIYAR NAGAR, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM-683 101
10 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ANGAMALY POLICE STATION, NH 47, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM-683 572 11 P.M. ELIAS, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. MATHEW, PURATHEKKATTU HOUSE, PEECHANIKKADU, P.O. PULIYANAM, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM-683 572
12 WILSON K. MATHAPPAN@ K.M. WILSON, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O. MATHAPPAN, KOORANTHAZHATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, PEECHANIKKADU, P.O PULIYANAM, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM-683 572
13 SHAJI YACOB, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. YACOB, MANIYARA HOUSE, PEECHANIKKADU, P.O. PULIYANAM, ANGAMALY, 14 P.P. VARGHESE, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O. POULOSE, PYNADATH HOUSE, PEECHANIKKADU, P.O. PULIYANAM, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM-683 572 15 K.M. SHAJU, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O. MATHAPPAN, KOORANTHAZHATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O. KARUKUTTY, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM-683 576
16 T.V. ELIAS, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. VARGHESE, THELAPPILLY HOUSE, P.O. PULIYANAM, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM-683 572
17 NELSON JAMES, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O. JAMES, THELAPPILLY HOUSE, PEECHANIKKADU, P.O. PULIYANAM, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM-683 572
18 BEJI ITTIERA, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. ITTIERA, KOORANTHAZHATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, ATTAKUZHY, P.O.
PULIYANAM, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM-683 572
19 ELDO PAUL, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. POULOSE, THELAPPILLY HOUSE, PEECHANIKKADU P.O, PULIYANAM, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM-683 572
20 K.T. ELDO, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O. THOMAS, KATHANADAN HOUSE, PEECHANIKKADU, P.O. PULIYANAM, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM-683 572 21 T.C. ELIAS, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O. CHACKO, THELAPPILLY HOUSE, PEECHANIKKADU, P.O. PULIYANAM, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM-683 572
22 KURIAKOSE VARGHESE @ P.V. KURIAKOSE, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. VARGHESE, PALATHINKAL HOUSE, PEECHANIKKADU, P.O PULIYANAM, ANGAMALY, 23 SHAJU YOHANNAN, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. YOHANNAN, PALIKKEDATH HOUSE, PEECHANIKKADU, P.O. PULIYANAM, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM-683 572 24 P.P. ELDHO, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. POULOSE, PANTHAPLAKKA HOUSE, ATTAKUZHY, P.O. PULIYANAM, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM-683 572
25 P.V. ELDO, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. VARGHESE, PALATHINKAL HOUSE, PEECHANIKKADU, P.O. PULIYANAM, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM-683 572
26 T.V. SCARIA, AGED 68 YEARS, S/O. VAREETH, THELAPPILLY HOUSE, PEECHANIKKADU, P.O. PULIYANAM, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM-683 572
27 P.O. ROY, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. OUSEPH, PALATHINKAL HOUSE, PEECHANIKKADU, P.O. PULIYANAM, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM-683 572
28 SALJO @ SALJO MATHAI, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. MATHAI, PARAYIL HOUSE, PEECHANIKKADU, P.O. PULIYANAM, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM-683 572
29 T.G. SHAJAN, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. GEORGE, THELAPPILLY HOUSE, PEECHANIKKADU P.O, P.O. PULIYANAM, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM-683 572
30 FR. ELDO CHERIAN, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. CHERIAN, KOORAN HOUSE, P.O. THURAVOOR, UTHUPPAN KAVALA, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM-683 572
31 P.V. ELDO, AGED 50 YEARS, P.V. VARGHESE, PAREKKATTIL HOUSE, PEECHANIKKADU, P.O. PULIYANAM, ANGAMALY, 32 A.P. VARGHESE, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. POULOSE, PAINADATH AYYAMPILLY HOUSE, PULIYANAM KARA, KARUKUTTY VILLAGE, KARUKUTTY P.O, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM-683 576 SRI.P.K.VIPINDAS GP THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
P.B.SURESH KUMAR & C.S.SUDHA, JJ.
-----------------------------------------------
Writ Appeal No.1445 of 2021 -----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of November, 2021
['S K PREMRAJ', '', 'C ANILKUMAR KALLESSERIL', 'V SARITHA', 'P M MANASH', 'REENU KURIAN', 'NEEMA NOOR MOHAMED', 'JAIN VARGHESE', 'NAVAS JAN A']
JUDGMENT
P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.
This appeal is directed against the interim order dated
05.10.2021 in W.P.(C) No.1409 of 2021. The appellant is respondent No.20 in the writ petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as also the learned Senior Counsel for respondents 1 to 4, the petitioners in the writ petition.
3. The impugned order is a common interim order passed by the learned Single Judge in a batch of writ petitions seeking police aid in respect of a few Parish Churches under the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church (the Church). The dispute in the said cases is essentially a dispute between two factions of the Church, the Orthodox faction and the Patriarch faction.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the findings and observations made in paragraphs 7 to 15, 19, 20 and 22 of the impugned order to justify the directions issued in the order are rendered on a misinterpretation of the decision of the Apex Court in K.S. Varghese v. St. Peter's & St. Paul's Syrian Orthodox Church, (2017) 15 SCC 333, and the said findings and observations are therefore, liable to be expunged.
5. It is seen that in terms of the interim order impugned in the writ appeal, the learned Single Judge has only directed the Superintendents of Police and the officers under their command to ensure that the areas where the Parish Churches are situated are protected from any violation of law and order by any person and that no attempt to breach peace or commit violence is tolerated or permitted from any person on either side of the divide and that the properties and assets of the churches are protected.
6. Insofar as the writ petition is still pending, we do not find any reason to entertain the appeal preferred against the interim order passed in the writ petition, especially since the appellant is not in any manner affected by the said interim order and the appellant is entitled to canvass the correctness of the findings and observations sought to be expunged, at the time of final hearing of the writ petition. We have taken the said view in an application seeking leave to institute an appeal against the impugned interim order and declined the leave sought for in the application, as per order on I.A.No.1 of 2021 in an unnumbered writ appeal.
In the said view of the matter, the writ appeal is dismissed. It is, however, made clear that this judgment will not preclude the appellant from canvassing the correctness of the findings and observations sought to be expunged, at the time of final hearing of the writ petition.
