Elections marred by tampering render subsequent appointments invalid; the court mandates investigation into past appointments and future electoral integrity.

ORDER :

The present writ petition is filed for Mandamus directing the respondents 2 and 3 not to approve any proposal of appointments, promotions and transfers emanating from the respondents 7, 10 and 11 until fresh elections are conducted for the 7^th respondent Society and duly elected body take charge of the affairs of the Society and to appoint an administrator to conduct the affairs of the 7^th respondent Society until fresh elections are held for the society and properly elected body takes charge of the affairs of the 7^th respondent Society.

2. BRIEF FACTS:

The brief facts as stated in the affidavit is that the writ petitioner is a CSI Christian by birth and is a Communicant of Nanjankulam Pastorate of Tirunelveli CSI Diocese, is regularly paying the annual subscription and is a qualified voter. The 7^th respondent Tirunelveli CSI Diocese is a religious body having faith in Christianity and its members are baptized Christians following and believing the Doctrine of Church of England. The 6^th respondent Tirunelveli Diocese Trust Association is a non-profit company incorporated under the Companies Act and the object of the Company is to purchase land and building for the purpose of establishing educational institutions, dispensaries, orphanages and other social service institutions, which is governed by Board of Directors who were elected once in four years from amongst the Executive Committee members of 7^th respondent society. The election for 7^th respondent society is conducted once in four years and the last election for the Society for the period 2011 to 2015 was conducted from 2011 to 2013. The said elections were conducted by three retired District Judges who were appointed as Commissioners in I.A.No.205 of 2011 in O.S.No.128 of 2011 Sub Court, Tirunelveli. The said suit was filed by three members of the Tirunelveli Diocese to declare the publication of election schedule as null and void or in the alternative to appoint a committee to supervise and to conduct election under the supervision of Sub Court, Tirunelveli. Considering the apprehension by the members that election would not be conducted in fair and unbiased manner, the Sub Court vide order, dated 22.11.2007, had appointed a retired District Judge as Commissioner to conduct the elections and the Commissioner conducted the first phase of election at Pastorate level, but resigned thereafter. Subsequently, another retired District Judge was appointed vide order, dated 30.08.2011 and the said commissioner conducted the elections to the six Church Councils and declared the results except for two Councils, vide report, dated 13.09.2011, then resigned. Hence, another retired District Judge was appointed. At this stage two of the plaintiffs in O.S.No. 128 of 2011 filed an application in I.A.No.292 of 2011 seeking for recounting the votes to the Church Council and orders were passed to recount the votes in the four Church Councils out of Six Church Councils and to conduct the elections to the North Church Council and to count the votes in South Church Council. As a consequence of recounting, the election to six members to the Diocese in Executive Committee were altered. Infact, the Court Commissioner while recounting the votes pointed out the tampering of seals of the ballet boxes but directed the affected six members to file their objections before the Sub Court. Thereafter, the Commissioner proceeded to conduct elections at the next Diocesan level and the elections to the Executive Committee members as well as office bearers of the Diocese on 16.03.2013 and on declaring the results submitted the report on 21.03.2013. The persons whose results were altered in the recounting filed CRP(MD)No.2678 of 2014 challenging the order passed in I.A.No.292 of 2011 and obtained stay, but thereafter the revision petition was disposed of directing the revision petitioners to raise all the issues before the Sub Court in O.S.No.128 of 2011 .

3. The 11^th respondent is not entitled to act as