The court has the discretion to entertain a writ petition even if an alternative remedy is available, and the mere filing of a civil suit does not bar the maintainability of a writ petition.

Heard both sides.

2.One Subash filed WP(MD)No.8189 of 2024 challenging his suspension from the primary membership of the CSI Thoothukudi Nazareth Dioceses leading to loss of voting rights. One DKM. Johnson and ors filed WP(MD)No.8190 of 2024 challenging their expulsion from the diocese for a period of six years. One Jeyasing filed WP(MD)No. 8192 of 2024 challenging suspension. All the writ petitions were allowed today. The decision taken by the executive committee of CSI Thoothukudi Nazareth Dioceses was faulted on the following grounds :

“a) lack of jurisdiction in view of the absence of Rev.Bishop b) violation of the principles of natural justice c) adoption of procedure in breach of the CSI Constitution and the by-laws.”

All the above grounds are equally applicable to the facts of the present cases also. For the very same reasons, the impugned decisions are liable to be set aside. I had also rejected the objections based on maintainability and laches.

11 W.P.(MD)No.7357 OF 2024 etc 3.However, there is one distinguishing feature in these cases. The petitioners herein had moved the jurisdictional civil court.

SDK.Rajan and Devarajan had filed O.S No.44 of 2024 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thoothukudi. Mamallan, the petitioner in WP(MD)No.8191 of 2024 had filed O.S No.219 of 2022. Jebachandran, the petitioner in WP(MD)No.7358 of 2024 had filed O.S No.98 of 2023. The question is whether I should non-suit the petitioners on this ground.

I am of the view that such harsh consequence need not befall the petitioners. Except the fact that the petitioners herein had moved the civil court, in all other respects, they are on par with the persons who had successfully assailed the suspension/expulsion imposed by the executive committee. During the pendency of these writ petitions, the petitioners elected to pursue the writ remedy. That is why, they filed memos/I.As before the jurisdictional civil court for withdrawing the suits. The Hon'ble Supreme Court considered a similar situation in the decision reported in (2004) 7 SCC 166 (S.J.S.Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. vs. State of Bihar and ors). It was held therein as follows :

“12. The principal basis on which the Single Judge and the only ground on which the Division Bench of the High Court refused relief to the appellant was because they found that the appellant was guilty of suppression of a material fact viz. the filing of the suit prior to approaching the Court under Article 226.

12 W.P.(MD)No.7357 OF 2024 etc

13. As a general rule, suppression of a material fact by a litigant disqualifies such litigant from obtaining any relief. This rule has been evolved out of the need of the courts to deter a litigant from abusing the process of court by deceiving it. But the suppressed fact must be a material one in the sense that had it not been suppressed it would have had an effect on the merits of the case. It must be a matter which was material for the consideration of the court, whatever view the court may have taken [R. v. General Commrs. for the purposes of the Income Tax Act for the District of Kensington, (1917) 1 KB 486 : 86 LJKB 257 : 116 LT 136 (CA)] . Thus when the liability to income tax was questioned by an applicant on the ground of her non-residence, the fact that she had purchased and was maintaining a house in the country was held to be a material fact, the suppression of which disentitled her to the relief claimed [Ibid.] . Again when in earlier proceedings before this Court, the appellant had undertaken that it would not carry on the manufacture of liquor at its distillery and the proceedings before this Court were concluded on that basis, a subsequent writ petition for renewal of the licence to manufacture liquor at the same distillery before the High Court was held to have been initiated for oblique and ulterior purposes and the interim order passed by the High Court in such subsequent application was set aside by this Court [State of Haryana v. Karnal Distillery