Rt. Rev. Dr. H.A. Martin and Samuel Gunaseelaraj Vs The Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church and Others

@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER

V. Ramasubramanian, J.@mdashWhile the civil revision petitions arise out of two exparte orders, passed by the I Additional Sub-Court, Trichy (i) granting an ad-interim injunction and (ii) directing the police to break open and hand over the records, pending a suit, the contempt petitions arise out of (i) a final order passed by me in CRP (MD) No. 2026 of 2010; and (ii) an interim order passed by me in CRP (MD) No. 2386 of 2010.

2. I have heard Mr. P.S. Raman and Mr. R. Muthukumaraswamy, learned senior counsel and also Mr. Veera Kathiravan, learned Counsel appearing for the Bishop/President of the Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church, who is the Petitioner in both the civil revision petitions and also the Petitioner in one contempt petition and Mr. T.V. Ramanujun, learned senior counsel and Mr. G. Masilamani, learned senior counsel for the elected members of the Church Council and their supporters, who are Respondents in both the civil revision petitions and in one contempt petition and the Petitioner in another contempt petition.

3. The Respondents in both the civil revision petitions and in the second contempt petition were elected as the members of the Church Council, of a society by name Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church in May 2010. But by an order dated 14-9-2010, the Bishop, who happens to be the President of the said society, assumed the functions of the Church Council to himself on various grounds including grounds of financial impropriety. Challenging the action of the Bishop/ President, the elected members of the Church Council filed a suit in O.S. No. 1001 of 2010 on the file of the I Additional Sub Court, Trichy, praying for a decree of declaration that the order passed by the Bishop/ President, invoking his emergency powers and abrogating the powers of the Church Council was illegal, null and void and for several consequential reliefs. Pending suit, the Respondents/Plaintiffs moved two applications in I.A. Nos. 1119 and 1120 of 2010. The prayer in the first application was for an interim order of injunction restraining the Bishop/President from interfering with the administration of the institution by the elected Church Council Members. The prayer in the second application was for a direction to the Commissioner of Police, Trichy to break open the lock of the Central Office of the Society and to provide protection to the Plaintiffs to enable them to function as elected Church Council Members.

4. The suit and the applications for injunction were filed on 12.11.2010 by the Respondents/Plaintiffs. The Bishop/President, who was the sole Defendant in the suit, was already on caveat. Therefore, when the applications were moved for ad-interim exparte orders, the counsel for the sole Defendant/caveator, seems to have filed vakalat and sought time to file counter.

5. But the learned Sub Judge passed an order in I.A. No. 1119 of 2010 granting an interim order of injunction restraining the Bishop/President from interfering with the Church Council Members from administering the affairs of the Society, after holding that "caveator has no right to insist to be heard before passing the interim order". But, fortunately, the learned Sub Judge, against whom certain allegations are now made, did not go to the extent of disposing of the application for injunction on the same day.

6. However, in the other application, viz. I.A. No. 1120 of 2010, where the elected members of the Church Council (Respondents in both CRPs) prayed for breaking open the lock of the Central Office and for Police protection, the learned Judge passed an order on the same date, viz. 12.11.2010 granting the final relief itself. The order is extracted here under, since it speaks for itself:

Heard. Perused the Petitioner averments and documents. Interim injunction is granted against Respondent today. Plaintiffs/Petitioners are 2 to 9 are elected Church Council Members of T.E.L.C. for the 41st Triennium for the year 2010-2013. For effective function of the Church Council Members police protection is necessary. It is granted an order of police protection to the Petitioners. The Commissioner of Police, Trichirappalli is directed to break open the lock of the Central Office of the first Plaintiff Society at Tranquebar House, Melapudur, Trichirappalli and provide protection to the Petitioners/Plaintiffs from their regular functioning as the elected Church Council Members of TELC for the 41st Triennium for the year 2010-2013. Further, the Commissioner of Police, Trichy is directed to submit the compliance report to this Court.

7. In other words, the learned Sub Judge ignored the caveat and granted an interim order of injunction in one application and also allowed the other application for break open and police protection on the very first day without affording any opportunity to the Bishop/President to file a counter. Therefore, challenging the exparte order of interim injunction granted on 12.11.2010 and also challenging the order for break open and police protection passed exparte, the Bishop/President (sole Defendant in the suit) came up with the revision petitions, CRP Nos. 2385 and 2386 of 2010.

8. In view of the nature of the orders passed and the questionable manner in which they were passed, the revision petitions were permitted by the Hon''ble Chief Justice to be moved on a Sunday. In view of the permission granted by the Hon''ble Chief Justice, the revisions were taken up for hearing as to admission on 14.11.2010 and while ordering notice in both the revisions, I granted interim suspension of the final order passed in I.A. No. 1120 of 2010 (the order directing the Commissioner of Police to break open and provide police protection).

9. Despite the order dated 14.11.2010 passed by me in the revision petitions, the Respondents have gone ahead with their agenda of breaking open and taking over control of the Central Office of the Society on 14.11.2010, which was a Sunday. Therefore, the revision Petitioner, viz. the Bishop/President has come up with Contempt Petition No. 681 of 2010.

10. Thus, there are two revision petitions and one contempt petition, all filed by the Bishop/President who is the sole Defendant in the suit before the trial Court.

11. Apart from the suit filed on the file of the Sub Court, Trichy, out of which the two revision petitions and one contempt petition arise, there were three suits in respect of the same institution. They were O.S. Nos. 799, 800 and 832 of 2010. These three suits are pending on the file of the Sub Court, Thirumangalam (Madurai). In those three suits instituted by third parties, several interim orders appear to have been passed against the Bishop/President. Out of one such interim order passed in I.A. No. 296 of 2010 in O.S. No. 832 of 2010, the Bishop/President filed a revision petition sometime ago, in CRP(MD) No. 2026 of 2010. Since the revision was straight away filed against an ad-interim exparte order of injunction, bypassing the remedies available before the same Court and the appellate Court, I disposed of the civil revision petition, of course, after hearing the counsel on both sides (unlike the learned Sub Judge, Trichy), with certain directions. The operative portion of the said order dated 07.10.2010 passed in CRP(MD) No. 2026 of 2010 found in paragraph 7, is extracted hereunder:

Therefore, taking into account the above, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of permitting the Petitioner to move two applications, one for vacating the injunction and another for suspension of the order of ad-interim injunction before the same Court and the same Court is directed to decide the application for interim suspension of the order of injunction, on the next day of sitting. It is conceded by Mr. V.R. Shanmuganathan, the learned Counsel appearing for the Plaintiff that the objection of the Plaintiff is not to the continuance of the Petitioner as Bishop, but to his continuance as a President of TELC. However, by virtue of the prayer made in the I.A. and the order passed, the injunction operates even in respect of the post of Bishop, which cannot in law be permitted. Therefore, till the application for interim suspension of the order of injunction is disposed of by the trial Court, there will be no impediment for the Petitioner from continuing as Bishop and President, but he shall not take any policy decision as President of TELC. The trial Court shall decide the application uninfluenced by the observations contained herein.

12. Complaining that order passed by me on 07.10.2010 directing the Bishop not to take policy decisions had been violated by the Bishop/President, by effecting appointments and transfers in several educational institutions run by the Society and by stalling an election, the Respondent in the revision petition CRP (MD) No. 2026 of 2010 has come up with the Contempt Petition No. 643 of 2010.

13. Thus, I have on hand, two revision petitions and two contempt petitions, out of which, the revision petitions and one contempt petition are by the Bishop and the other contempt petition is against the Bishop.

14. The disposal of both the revision petitions is not an arduous task, since the issues raised in these revisions lie in a narrow campus. The suit O.S. No. 1001 of 2010 was filed by the elected members of the Church Council on 12-11-2010 challenging the order of the Bishop dated 14-9-2010 arrogating to himself the powers of the elected body. Obviously, there was a time gap of 2 months. Therefore, heavens were not likely to fall, if the learned Sub-Judge had acceded to the request of the counsel for the caveator for time to file a counter, when the applications for injunction and police protection were moved for ad-interim exparte orders on 12-11-2010. But unfortunately, the Sub-Judge passed a curious order, a portion of which reads as follows:

The Hon''ble High Court has opined that 148A is procedure between court and the party seeking admission. Caveator has no right to insist to be heard before passing interim order. Order passed without giving notice to caveat is not without jurisdiction

15. Not only the above view is erroneous, but it is also sad to note that even the time tested principles for the grant of an order of injunction were ignored by the court below. Even if the elected members are presumed for the sake of argument, to have made out a prima facie case, they certainly did not have balance of convenience in their favour, in view of the time gap between the date of the order of the Bishop and the date of filing of the suit. At any rate, there was no likelihood of irreparable loss or injury at all. But the learned Judge proceeded to grant an interim order rejecting the request of the caveator.

16. In a manner aggravating the illegality so committed, the court below also allowed the other application for police protection on the same day, without giving opportunity to the Defendant to file a counter. Adding fuel to fire, the learned Judge directed the Commissioner of Police, Tiruchirappalli, to comply with the order and also file a report. I am unable to convince myself that an order for breaking open and police protection could have been passed on the first day without any opportunity to the other side to file a counter, merely out of ignorance. As a matter of fact, an allegation has been made on record to the effect that the wife of the learned Judge was employed as a Teacher in one of the Schools run by TELC. The veracity of this allegation cannot be tested here, without an opportunity to the learned Judge and hence I am not going by the said allegation. However, the fact remains that the orders passed by the court below in I.A. Nos. 1119 and 1120 of 2010 cannot at all be sustained.

17. Coming to the contempt petition filed by the revision Petitioner, viz., the Bishop, it is his allegation that despite the interim order granted by me on 14-11-2010 suspending the order of the court below, the Respondents in the revisions broke open the lock and destroyed the records in the central office on the evening of 14-11-2010. It is the case of the Bishop that the order passed by me was communicated to the Commissioner of Police, by 4.00 P.M. on the same day namely 14-11-2010 and that it was also flashed in the Television Channels. But the Respondents broke open the lock and destroyed the records by setting fire at 7.00 P.M. Therefore a police complaint was given at 10.30 P.M.

18. Interestingly, the Respondents have not denied the fact that they have gained entry into the central office on 14-11-2010. All that they now claim is that they merely opened the lock and not broke open the lock. According to them, there was a seal put on the premises, which forced them to apply to the court seeking police protection and that since the seal was removed there was no impediment for them to gain entry into the office.

19. But the above explanation can hardly be accepted. If the Respondents did not require police assistance, they need not have sought for the same. After having obtained an order and after coming to know of the stay granted by this Court, if they had chosen to gain entry into the central office, it is nothing but a flagrant violation of the order of this Court. It would atleast amount to over reaching the orders of this Court. Therefore, I am of the view that the Respondents have not come out clean in this regard.

20. Coming to the contempt filed against the Bishop on the ground that he had taken policy decisions despite the order passed in CRP No. 2026 of 2010, it is true that while communicating the order passed by me, the Bishop did not give a full extract. It is also true that he had passed several orders dated 15-9-2010, at least a few of which had been despatched after my order dated 7-10-2010. But when compared to the manner in which the elected members of the Church Council over reached the orders of this Court, what was done by the Bishop would not fall under the category of wilful disobedience. There are grey areas about what constitutes policy decisions and whether the acts of the Bishop could be taken to be policy decisions. If the acts fall within those grey areas, there cannot be an allegation of contempt. Therefore, the contempt petition against the Bishop is bound to fail.

21. Thus in essence, it is my considered view that both the revisions are bound to be allowed and the contempt petition against the Bishop is liable to fail. On the other hand, a case of contempt is made out against the members of the Church Council.

22. But a mere disposal of the revisions and the contempt petitions on the above lines, would not, in my opinion, serve any purpose, in view of the fact that what is narrated in the preceding paragraphs is only the tip of the ice berg. The parties to these proceedings have been indulging in a series of litigation, before various Courts, for the past several years, not only bringing down the reputation of the institution that they represent, but also exposing the weaknesses in the system of administration of justice, by approaching various Courts throughout the State and by managing to obtain various interim orders, some times conflicting with each other and some times of unimaginable dimension. Therefore, it is necessary to take note of the overall picture of all pending cases in various Courts, so that the order eventually passed could at least prevent any further forum shopping (or marketing), if not any further litigation. Hence, I give below a brief prelude about the constitution of the Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church and the details about the various litigation now pending in various Courts. The prelude has become essential, since every Court has dealt with every single case involving this institution, in isolation, creating a situation equivalent to the parable of four blind men attempting to evaluate the elephant.

23. The Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church (TELC) was registered as a Society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, in the year 1919. It is stated that one of the objects of the formation of the Society was to care for the salvation of its members. But, the institution is now plunged into so much of litigation in various Courts across the State to such an extent that its own salvation has become a big question mark.

24. The Society has about 1,08,850 Congregations and 113 Pastorates in 10 Districts of the State of Tamil Nadu. The Pastorate Conference Members elect (i) Pastorate Committee; (ii) Synod Committee; and (iii) District Committee. The Synod would elect the Church Council, comprising of 5 lay members and 3 Clergymen. The Church Council is the Chief Administrative Body of the society. The President of the Council is the Bishop of Tranquebar House. But the Bishop is elected by a separate process about which we are not concerned in this case. While the tenure of the elected members of the Church Council is 3 years (a triennium), the tenure of the Bishop is 10 years or 65 years of age.

25. The Society runs and administers 9 Higher Secondary Schools, 128 Primary Schools, 2 Old Age Homes, 28 Orphanages, 1 Hospital, One College and 2 Teacher Training Institutions. So far about the good of the institution. The bad and ugly are to follow now.

26. As stated earlier, the Church Council holds office for a period of three years known as "Triennium". Therefore, elections to the Church Council are held once in three years. Every time, when the meeting of the Synod is convened for electing representatives to the Church Council, the Society is plunged into litigation of abnormal proportions. When the Synod notification No. 1/2004 was issued for the Triennium 2004-07, there were cases filed both before and after the elections. The same was repeated when elections were attempted to be held for the Triennium 2007-10. The Triennium 2010-13 has also become the subject matter of several cases, both civil and criminal. It is pertinent to note here that the elections to every Triennium gets stalled for a brief period, due to interim orders that the parties managed to have obtained. Therefore, it becomes difficult for the elected Church Council Members to hold office for the full tenure of three years for which the Triennium is constituted.

27. Insofar as the Triennium 2010-13 is concerned, there are at least 12 suits filed before the elections and 11 suits filed after the elections. Interestingly, in some of these cases, the real litigants, viz. Bishop on the one hand and the elected Church Council Members on the other hand, are pitted against each other in a direct combat. The other cases are actually fought by both the groups benami, in the names of their own supporters, all professing to advance the cause of the institution, though the results that followed have destroyed the cause for which the institution was established about 90 years ago. The following table will give a bird''s eye view of the number of suits, the parties to those proceedings, the Courts in which they are pending the reliefs sought, both interim and final, in those proceedings.

Sl. N o.	Case No./ Court	Parties to the litigation / Cause Title	Prayer in the suit	Interim reliefs sought	Interim orders now in force
		CASES FILED BEFORE ELECTION
1	O.S.No.33/10 District Munsif Court, Lalgudi	P.John Pandian v. (1) TELC, rep. By Secretary (2) TELC rep. by its President/Bishop Rt.Rev.Dr.H.A.Martin (3) TELC, Lalgudi rep. by its District Chairman Rev.M.Rethinam (4) Rev.T.Samuel Thangaraj (5) Rev.I.Thangaraj (6) P.E.Jayaraj (7) Mr.R.Benjamin Jayaraj (8) I.Prem Kumar (9) J.D.Wilson	(a) To restrain Lalgudi District Committee and other CC Members (R3 to R9) from announcing the Notification No.1/2010 dated 28.01.2010 being it is against the Constitution as against the Church Rule 152(A) and other relevant Rules; and (b) to insist the Secretary, TELC (1st Defendant) for the consequential relief of the revised notification after the amendment of the Bye-laws as specified in the Church Rules/ domestic rules under 152(A) of Document "A".	I.A.No.122/10 seeking interim injunction to stop the announcement either in this Pastorate in each and every Pastorate of TELC as declared as null and void.	Interim injunction not to announce elections in Lalgudi Pastorate
2	O.S.No.120/10 Subordinate Judge, Madurai	A.Daniel Shanmugam v. (1) TELC, rep. by its Secretary (2) TELC rep. by its President/Bishop Rt.Rev.Dr.H.A.Martin (3) Rev.T.Samuel Thangaraj (4) Rev.I.Thangaraj (5) P.E.Jayaraj (6) Mr.R.Benjamin Jayaraj (7) I.Prem Kumar (8) J.D.Wilson	(a) To declare that the notification No.1/2010 dt.28.01.2010 issued by the 1st defendant is null and void; and (b) for permanent injunction restraining defendants 1 and 2 from conducting any election in pursuance of the notification No.1/2010 dt.28.01.2010 by implementing the notification No.1/2010 in the Pastorate of TELC.	I.A.No.91/10 for interim injunction against conducting elections in any of the Pastorate	Injunction not to conduct elections in all Pastorate
3	O.S.No.98/10 Principal District Munsif, Kumbakonam	P.Inbaraj, SCC Member, TELC (2007-2010) v. (1) TELC rep. by its President/Bishop Rt.Rev.Dr.H.A.Martin (2) TELC rep. by its Secretary E.D.Charles (3) Rev.Augustine Sathiaseelan	(a) To direct the defendants to discharge their official duty according to the bye-laws and Church Rules; and (b) to restrain the defendants to conduct the election and announce the election as against the bye-law of the Society of TELC Church Rules.	I.A.No... /10 seeking injunction against conducting elections in any of the Pastorate	Nil
4	O.S.No.32/10 Principal Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam	Lily Inbaraj v. (1) TELC rep. by its President/Bishop Rt.Rev.Dr.H.A.Martin (2) TELC rep. by its Secretary E.D.Charles	(a) To declare that the notification No.1/2010 issued by the 2nd defendant is null and void; (b) for permanent injunction restraining defendants 1 to 3, their men, agents, servants and	I.A.No.36/10 seeking interim injunction against conducting elections from any one of the Pastorate	Interim order against conducting elections on 08.3.2010 till 13.4.2010

Sl. N o.	Case No./ Court	Parties to the litigation / Cause Title	Prayer in the suit	Interim reliefs sought	Interim orders now in force
		(3) Rev.Augustin Sathiyaseelan	the persons claiming through defendants 1 to 3 from implementing/ announcing notification No.1/2010 in any one of the Pastorate of the TELC; and (c) for permanent injunction restraining defendants 1 to 3 from conducting any election in pursuance of notification No.1/2010 dt.28.01.2010 by implementing notification No.1/2010 dt.28.01.2010 in the Pastorate of TELC
5	O.S.No.11/10 Subordinate Judge, Pattukottai	S.Seeli v. (1) TELC rep. by its Secretary E.D.Charles (2) TELC rep. by its President/Bishop Rt.Rev.Dr.H.A.Martin	For permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them in any manner conducting the proposed delegates election on 14.3.2010 and also on subsequent date in the Pattukottai Pastorate on the basis of Notification No.1/2010 issued by the defendants to the Pastorate of TELC, Pattukottai by way of implementing the notification No.1/2010	I.A.No.44/10 seeking interim injunction against conducting elections in Pattukottai Pastorate	Interim order not to conduct elections in Pattukottai Pastorate till 17.3.2010
6	O.S.No.2428/1 0 City Civil Court, Chennai	John Abraham and another v. (1) TELC rep. by its Secretary (2) The Bishop/President, TELC (3) The Pastor Chairman, TELC Morning Star Luthern Church, Royapuram, Chennai 21 (4) The District Registrar (Registrar of Societies) Tiruchirappalli	To declare that the Synod notification of the 1st defendant issued in No.1/2010 dt. 28.01.2010 for the election of the Members to the Church Council for the Triennium 2010-2013 as per amended Bye-law is null and void	I.A.No... /10 seeking injunction against conducting elections in any of the Pastorate	Nil
7	C.S.No.278/10 High Court, Madras	R.D.Jayaraj v. (1) TELC rep. by its Secretary (2) The Bishop/President (3) The Pastorate & Chairman, Pasters Council, Chennai 21 (4) W.Martine Inbaraj (5) W.Prabhakaran (6) S.Staline	(a) To declare Synod notification No.1/2010 as invalid; (b) for permanent injunction restraining elected representatives from taking part or functioning; and (c) for mandatory injunction to conduct election to Synod Continuation Committee	For interim injunction restraining respondents 4 to 6 Synod delegates from Royapuram Pastorate from participating in the Synod	Nil
8	C.S.No.294/10 High Court, Madras	Hendry Jayaraj v. (1) TELC rep. by its Secretary	For mandatory injunction to conduct the day to day administration of the Church in accordance with the old	(1) To conduct the 41st Triennial Synod in accordance with the old Church Rules; and	Interim order to conduct election in accordance

Sl. N o.	Case No./ Court	Parties to the litigation / Cause Title	Prayer in the suit	Interim reliefs sought	Interim orders now in force
		(2) The Inspector General of Registration, Chennai (3) The District Registrar, The Registrar of Societies, Tiruchy	Church Rules	(2) To appoint the Commissioner to conduct the 41st Triennial Synod	with the new rules J.Kanakaraj,J, appointed as observer
9	O.S.No.13/10 Sub Court, Periyakulam	S.Arputhamani v. (1) TELC rep. by its President/Bishop Rt.Rev.Dr.H.A.Martin (2) TELC rep. by its Secretary E.D.Charles (3) Rev.T.Samuel Thangaraj (4) I.Preamkumar Sekaran (5) P.E.Jeyaraj (6) Rev.I.Thangaraj (7) J.D.Wilson (8) R.Benjamin Jayaraj (9) The Pastor, TELC, Periyakulam, Bodinayakanur	(a) To declare that the 2nd defendant is not entitled to hold the post of Secretary, TELC, Tranquebar House, Melapadur, Trichy; and (b) for permanent injunction restraining the 2nd defendant from carrying out or function as Secretary of the TELC, Tranquebar House, Melapudur, Trichy-1	I.A.No.57/10 seeking interim injunction against the Secretary, TELC from functioning	Interim injunction restraining Secretary, TELC from functioning
10	O.S.No.72/10 District Munsif Court, Kodaikanal	Mrs.Deepa Dheborah @ Shivasankari v. (1) TELC rep. by its President/Bishop Rt.Rev.Dr.H.A.Martin (2) TELC rep. by its Secretary E.D.Charles	For permanent injunction restraining the Secretary, TELC from functioning as Secretary of TELC	I.A.No.146/10 for ad-interim order restraining the 2nd defendant from carrying out or functioning as secretary of the TELC, Tranqubar House, Trichy-1 till disposal of the suit	Interim order restraining Secretary, TELC from functioning as Secretary, TELC
11	O.S.No.4559/1 0 III Asst. City Civil Court, Chennai	G.Immanual & T.Thomson Jesudoss v. (1) TELC rep. by its Secretary (2) The Pastor, TELC Morning Star Luthern Church, Royapuram, Chennai 21 (3) State rep. by its District Registrar (Registrar of Societies), Tiruchirappalli	(a) To declare the elected Synod delegates notified under Synod notification No.II/2010 dt.13.4.2010; and (b) for mandatory injunction to convene 41st Synod with all eligible members including plaintiffs and excluding ex-officio nominated members	To permit the plaintiffs to participate in the Synod	Interim order granted
12	O.S.No.295/10 Principal District Munsif, Erode	B.Issac Raj v. (1) TELC rep. by its President/Bishop Rt.Rev.Dr.H.A.Martin (2) TELC rep. by its Secretary E.D.Charles (3) Rev.P.R.Selvaraj (4) R.Benjamin Jayaraj	(a) To declare Synod notification No.1/2010 dt.28.01.2010 as null and void; (b) for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from implementing/ announcing the notification No.1/2010 dt.28.01.2010 (c) for permanent injunction	Interim injunction restraining the defendants from implementing and conducting notification No.1/2010 dt.28.01.2010 and church Council election of TELC	Interim injunction granted on 30.4.2010

Sl. N o.	Case No./ Court	Parties to the litigation / Cause Title	Prayer in the suit	Interim reliefs sought	Interim orders now in force
			restraining D1 and D3 from carrying out or functioning as Secretary of TELC and Director of Lutheran Eye Hospital, Dharapuram and act as a Member
		CASES FILED AFTER ELECTION
1	O.S.No.357/10 District Munsif Court, Perambalur	Nicholson v. (1) TELC rep. by its President/Bishop (2) Church Council, TELC rep. by its Secretary (3) Chairman, Education Board (4) E.D.Charles	For permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the administration of TELC either by way of transfer or appointments of Church Workers, Pastors, Teachers and sale of properties belonging to TELC Society and from passing any administrative orders	I.A.No.949/10 for interim injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the administration of TELC either by way of transfer or appointments of Church Workers, Teachers and and sale of properties belonging to TELC Society and from passing any administrative orders	Status quo
2	O.S.No.294/10 Sub Court, Palani	P.Dhanraj - for himself and all members of TELC v. (1) TELC rep. by Secretary (2) Rev.H.A.Martin, President/Bishop, TELC (3) E.D.Charles (4) Rev.R.Albert Suckarno (5) R.Pushparaj (6) I.E.P.Gnanaraj (7) Rev.P.Immanuvel (8) Rev.C.Sam Jebaraj Stephenson (9) P.J.Thilagar (10) R.Benjamin Jeyaraj (11) Rev.Paul Sathiyamoorthy, Chairman, Ednl. Board (12) The Paster/ Chairman, Pastorate Committee, TELC, Olinathar Church, Jothiupuram	(a) For mandatory injunction to direct defendants 1 and 2 to remove Rule Nos.128(3), 128(12) and 194 from bye-laws of 1st defendant Society; and (b) for mandatory injunction directing defendants 1 and 2 to issue Church Council Circular/notification in respect of elections for the Pastorate Committee, D.C., D.E. And Synod for the Triennium 2010-2013	(a) I.A.No.530/ 10 for temporary injunction restraining the 2nd respondent/ defendant from enforcing Rule 128(3), 128(12) and 194 of the bye-laws of 1st respondent/ 1st defendant Society; and (b) I.A.No.531/ 10 for mandatory injunction to direct R1 and R2 to issue C.C. Circular/ notification in respect of elections for P.C., D.E., D.C. and Synod (General Body) for Triennium 2010-2013.	(a) Interim order granted on 14.9.2010 till 28.9.2010. Subsequently, extended till date; and (b) Interim order granted
3	O.S.No.799/10 Sub Court, Madurai	Raju v. (1) Rev.Dr.H.A.Martin, President/Bishop, TELC (2) Madurai Pastorate through its Pastor	(a) To declare R.194 of the Bye-laws of TELC which enable the D1 to proclaim emergency and abrogate the elected CC as ultra vires & unconstitutional and against T.N.Societies Registration Act	(a) I.A.No.821/ 10 for mandatory injunction to direct Asst. Commissioner of Police, Kottai Sargam to remove the lock put up in Central Office,	(a) Interim order granted on 16.9.2010; and (b) Interim order granted on 16.9.2010

Sl. N o.	Case No./ Court	Parties to the litigation / Cause Title	Prayer in the suit	Interim reliefs sought	Interim orders now in force
			and Rules and against the democratic set and objects of the Society; (b) to declare that the President/Bishop''s Emergency Circular dt.14.9.2010 issued by D1 abrogating the Church Council duly elected by the 41st Triennial Synod and proclaiming emergency in TELC as null and void; and (c) for permanent injunction restraining D1 from interfering with the functioning and working of Church Council duly elected by 41st Triennial Synod on 5th to 7th of May 2010 to TELC elected for the period 2010-2013 till its full period is over and new Church Council is elected in 42nd Triennial Synod	TELC, Tranquebar House, Trichy and afford adequate protection; and (b) I.A.No.822/10 for stay of the operation of the President''s emergency Circular No.1/2010 dt.14.9.2010 issued by R1/D1 abrogating the Church Council duly elected by the 41st Triennial Synod and proclaiming emergency in TELC	till 04.10.2010 - subsequently extended
4	O.S.No.800/10 Sub Court, Thirumangalam	Samuel Gunaseelaraj v. (1) Rev.Dr.H.A.Martin, Bishop/President, TELC (2) Thirumangalam Pastorate through its Pastors	(a) To declare R.194 of the Bye-laws of TELC which enable the D1 to proclaim emergency and abrogate the elected CC as ultra vires & unconstitutional and against T.N.Societies Registration Act and Rules and against the democratic set up and objects of the Society; (b) to declare that the President/Bishop''s Emergency Circular dt.14.9.2010 issued by D1 abrogating the Church Council duly elected by the 41st Triennial Synod and proclaiming emergency in TELC as null and void; and (c) for permanent injunction restraining D1 from interfering with the functioning and working of Church Council duly elected by 41st Triennial Synod on 5th to 7th of May 2010 to TELC elected for the period 2010-2013 till its full period is over and new Church Council is elected in 42nd Triennial Synod	(a) I.A.No.823/ 10 for interim injunction restraining the respondents from in any manner interfering with the functioning or working of Church Council duly elected by 41st Triennial Synod 2010-2013 till its full period is over and new Church Council is elected in 42nd Triennial Synod; and (b) I.A.No.824/10 for stay of the President''s Emergency Circular No.1/2010 dt.14.9.2010 issued by R1/D1 abrogating the Church Council duly elected by the 41st Triennial Synod and proclaiming emergency in TELC	(a) Interim order granted on 16.9.2010 till 04.10.2010. Subsequently, extended till date; and (b) Interim order granted on 16.9.2010 till 04.10.2010 - subsequently extended
5	O.S.No.130/ 10 Sub Court, Ariyalur	G.Selvaraj v. (1) E.D.Charles (2) R.Benjamin Jeyaraj (3) I.E.P.Gnanaraj (4) Pushparaj	To restrain the defendants from in any way interfering with the administration and governance of the 9th defendant Church by President/Bishop TELC either claiming to be Office bearers or Members of Church Council elected on 5th to 7th May 2010	I.A.No.186/10 for interim injunction restraining the defendants from in any way interfering with the administration and governance of the 9th defendant Church by	Interim order granted on 17.9.2010 till 30.9.2010

Sl. N o.	Case No./ Court	Parties to the litigation / Cause Title	Prayer in the suit	Interim reliefs sought	Interim orders now in force
		(5) P.J.Thilagar (6) Rev.R.Albert Suckarno (7) Rev.P.Immanuel (8) Rev. Sam Jebaraj (9) TELC rep. by President/Bishop	in the 41st Triennial Synod that took place at Holy Trinity Church, Tranquebar House, Trichy or trying to conduct the election of Members of Triennial Synod or any other organisational election for P.C., D.C., D.E. of TELC in any other names or capacity whatsoever in derogation of Circular No.1 of 2010 dt.14.9.2010.	President/Bishop TELC either claiming to be Office bearers or Members of Church Council elected on 5th to 7th May 2010 in the 41st Triennial Synod that took place at Holy Trinity Church, Tranquebar House, Trichy or trying to conduct the election of Members of Triennial Synod or any other organisational election for P.C., D.C., D.E. of TELC in any other names or capacity whatsoever in derogation of Circular No.1 of 2010 dt.14.9.2010.
6	O.S.No.832/10 Sub Court, Thirumangalam	Samuel Gnanaseelaraj v. (1) Rev.H.A.Martin (2) TELC, rep. by its Secretary (3) Thirumangalam Pastorate through its Pastor	To declare that holding the post of Bishop/President by D1 in TELC is illegal, void abinitio and is unconstitutional and is against T.N.Societies Registration Act and Rule made thereunder and the Bye-laws of the Society; and	(a) I.A.No.296/10 - to restrain D1 from in any manner acting or functioning or working or otherwise as President/Bishop, TELC; and (b) I.A.No.356/10 - to suspend the injunction or to suspend the same till the disposal of I.A.No.356/10 i.e. the same application on 18.10.10. Both I.As. posted on 27.10.2010	Interim Order granted till 18.10.10. R1/D1 filed CRP (MD) No.2026/10 before Madurai Bench. By order dated 07.0.2010 disposed of the CRP with certain directions.
7	O.S.No.182/10 District Munsif Court, Tirupattur	G.Johncy v. (1) R.Pushparaj (2) R.Benjamin Jayaraj (3) I.E.P.Gnanaraj (4) E.D.Charles (5) P.J.Thilagar (6) Rev.R.Albert Suckarno (7) Rev.P.Immanuel (8) Rev.Sam Jebaraj Stephenson (9) TELC rep. by President/Bishop	(a) To declare D1 to D8 have no authority to interfere in the administration of D9 Church by President/Bishop either by blocking the re-opening of Central Office at Tranquebar House, Trichy or by conducting day to-day affairs of the Church in view of assuming of the Office of Church Council vide his Circular No.1/2010 dt.14.9.2010 declared at 1.00 pm or by claiming to function as Vice-President, TELC Secretary, Church Council, TELC, Treasurer TELC, Property Officer TELC, Bursar of TBML College, Poraiyar or in any other capacity; and (b) for permanent injunction restraining D1 to D8 from interfering the administration	I.A.No.622/10 for interim injunction restraining D1 to D8 from interfering in the administration of D9 Church by President/Bishop either by blocking the re-opening of Central Office at Tranquebar House, Trichy or by conducting day to-day affairs of the Church in view of assuming of the Office of Church Council vide his Circular No.1/2010 dt.14.9.2010 declared at 1.00 pm or by claiming to function as Vice-President, TELC Secretary, Church Council, TELC, Treasurer TELC,	Interim order against R1 to R3, R5, R7 and R8 granted. No injunction against R4 and R6 granted on 24.9.2010 till 01.10.2010. Subsequently extended till date

Sl. N o.	Case No./ Court	Parties to the litigation / Cause Title	Prayer in the suit	Interim reliefs sought	Interim orders now in force
			of D9 Church by President/ Bishop either by blocking the re-opening of Central Office at Tranquebar House, Trichy or by conducting day to-day affairs of the Church in view of assuming of the Office of Church Council vide his Circular No.1/2010 dt.14.9.2010 declared at 1.00 pm or by claiming to function as Vice President, TELC, Secretary, Church Council, TELC, Treasurer TELC, Bursar of TBML College, Poraiyar or in any capacity	Property Officer TELC, Bursar of TBML College, Poraiyar or in any other capacity
8	O.S.No.433/10 District Munsif Court, Kancheepuram	K.P.Manohar v. (1) E.D.Charles (2) R.Benjamin Jeyaraj (3) I.E.P.Gnanaraj (4) R.Pushparaj (5) P.J.Thilagar (6) R.Albert Sockarno (7) Rev.P.Immanual (8) Rev.C.Sam Jebaraj Stephenson (9) TELC, rep. by its President/Bishop (10) The Pastor, TELC Immanuel Church, Kancheepuram	To restrain D1 to D8 from interfering with administration and governance of D9 Church by the President/ Bishop, TELC, Tranquebar house, Trichy and D10 Church, Konerikuppam, Kancheepuram and they are not to function as a Secretary, Vice President, Treasurer, Property Officer and Members of the Dissolved Church Council, E.B. Chairman and Correspondent if any in Central Office, Schools, Colleges and administration	I.A.No.878/10 for interim injunction restraining D1 to D8 from interfering with administration and governance of D9 Church by the President/Bishop, TELC, Tranquebar House, Trichy and D10 Church, Konerikuppam, Kancheepuram and they are not to function as a Secretary, Vice President, Treasurer, Property Officer and Members of the Dissolved Church Council, E.B. Chairman and Correspondent if any in Central Office, Schools, Colleges and administration	Interim order granted till 18.10.2010. Subsequently extended.
9	O.S.No.705/10 Sub Court, Dharapuram	G.Ravichandran v. (1) TELC, rep. by Secretary (2) Rev.H.A.Martin, President/bishop, TELC (3) Pastor/Chairman Pastorate Committee, Zegan Balg Church, Tharapuram	(a) To grant mandatory injunction to remove Rule 128(3), 128(12) 194 of the Bye-laws of D1 Society; (b) to declare emergency Circular No.1/2010 dt.14.9.2010 by invoking R.194(1) of TELC Rules is illegal, ultra vires and non est; and (c) for permanent injunction restraining D2 from carrying out administration independently in the absence of Church Council either by way of issuing proceedings or implementing proceedings/orders of the President/Bishop of TELC under R.194(1) already issued by D2	I.A.No.218/10 for temporary injunction restraining D2 from carrying out administration independently in the absence of Church Council either by way of issuing proceedings or implementing proceedings/orders of the President/Bishop of TELC under R.194(1) already issued by D2	Interim order granted till 22.11.2010

Sl. N o.	Case No./ Court	Parties to the litigation / Cause Title	Prayer in the suit	Interim reliefs sought	Interim orders now in force
10	O.S.No.154/10 Sub Court, Ariyalur	P.Inbaraj for himself and on behalf of all like minded Members of TELC, Tranquebar House, Trichy v. (1) E.D.Charles (2) R.Benjamin Jeyaraj (3) I.E.P.Gnanaraj (4) Pushparaj (5) P.J.Thilagar (6) Rev.R.Albert Suckarno (7) Rev.P.Immanuel (8) Rev. Sam Jebaraj (9) TELC rep. by President/Bishop	To restrain the defendants from in any way interfering with the administration and governance of the 9th defendant Church by President/Bishop TELC either claiming to be Office bearers or Members of Church Council elected on 5th to 7th May 2010 in the 41st Triennial Synod that took place at Holy Trinity Church, Tranquebar House, Trichy or trying to conduct the election of Members of Triennial Synod or any other organisational election for P.C., D.C., D.E. of TELC in any other names or capacity whatsoever in derogation of Circular No.1 of 2010 dt.14.9.2010.	For interim injunction restraining the defendants from in any way interfering with the administration and governance of the 9th defendant Church by President/Bishop TELC either claiming to be Office bearers or Members of Church Council elected on 5th to 7th May 2010 in the 41st Triennial Synod that took place at Holy Trinity Church, Tranquebar House, Trichy or trying to conduct the election of Members of Triennial Synod or any other organisational election for P.C., D.C., D.E. of TELC in any other names or capacity whatsoever in derogation of Circular No.1 of 2010 dt.14.9.2010.	Interim order granted on 9.11.2010 till 22.11.2010
11	O.S.No.1001/1 0 Sub Court, Trichy	(1) TELC, rep. by its Secretary E.D.Charles (2) Rev.R.Albert Sockarno (3) I.E.P.Gnanaraj (4) R.Pushparaj (5) Rev.R.Immanuvel (6) Rev.Sam Jebaraj Stephenson (7) P.J.Thilagar (8) R.Benjamin Jayaraj v. Rev.Dr.H.A.Martin, President/Bishop, TELC	(a) To declare President Bishop''s Emergency Circular No.1/2010 dt.14.9.2010 issued by defendant abrogating CC duly elected by the 41st Triennial Synod for 2010-2013 and proclaiming emergency in TELC, 1st Plaintiff Society as illegal, ultra vires, non est in the eye of law; (b) for permanent injunction restraining D1 from implementing emergency Circular No.1/2010 & carrying out function in respect of said circular; (c) for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in the administration and functioning of plaintiffs 2 to 9, the elected Church Council Member of TELC for 41st Triennium 2010-2013; and (d) to delcare Rule 128(3), 128(12) and 194(1), (2), (3) of amended Bye-law of the plaintiff Society as illegal and null and void and to restrain defendant from functioning under the Rules	(a) I.A.No.1119/10 for interim injunction restraining the respondent/defendant from interfering in the administration of TELC Society by plaintiffs 2 to 9, the elected Church Council Members of TELC for 41st Triennium 2010 to 2013 either by way of functioning as a President of TELC (or) passing orders or circulars or proceedings under Rule 194(1) of TELC (b) I.A.No.1120/10 to direct Commissioner of Police, Trichy to break open the lock of Central Office of Trichy at Tranquebar House and provide protection to petitioners/plaintiffs for functioning as elected Church Council Members of TELC	Interim Order granted on 12.11.2010

Sl. N o.	Case No./ Court	Parties to the litigation / Cause Title	Prayer in the suit	Interim reliefs sought	Interim orders now in force
12	O.S.No.5401/ 10 City Civil Court, Chennai	C.Rajasekaran v. The Church Council rep. by its Secretary	For permanent injunction restraining the defendants from assuming the office of the Church Council and from passing any administrative orders in respect of the management and affairs of the Society	I.A.No.10482/10 for stay of all administrative and executive functions of the Church	A civil revision petition in CRP No.2063/10 was filed by the Church Council on the file of this Court to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.5401/ 10. It is admitted and stay of all further proceedings in the suit granted
13	O.S.No.218/10 Sub Court, Dharapuram	G.Ravichandran v. TELC rep. by Secretary and 2 others	(a) To grant mandatory injunction to remove Rule 128(3), 128(12), 194 of the Bye-laws of D1 Society; (b) to declare emergency circular No.1/2010 dt. 14.9.2010 by invoking Rule 194(1) of TELC Rules is illegal, ultra vires and non est; and (c) for permanent injunction restraining D2 (President) from carrying out administration independently in the absence of Church Council either by way of issuing proceedings or implementing proceedings/ orders of the President/Bishop of TELC under R.194(1) already issued by D2 (President)	I.A.No.705/10 for temporary injunction restraining D2 (President) from carrying out administration independently in the absence of Church Council either by way of issuing proceedings or implementing proceedings/ Orders of the President/Bishop of TELC under R.194(1) already issued by D2	Interim order granted till 22.11.2010
14	O.S.No.909/10 Sub Court, Thirumangalam	Samuel Gunaseelaraj v. (1) Rev.Dr.H.A.Martin, Bishop/President (2) TELC rep. by its Secretary (3) Thirumangalam Pastorate rep. by its Pastor	To declare all actions or decisions taken by the Bishop on or after 14.9.2010 as null and void	(a) I.A.No.943/10 for mandatory injunction to direct the President/ Bishop not to pass any orders without sanction of Church Council; and (b) I.A.No.944/10 for mandatory injunction to direct the respondents not to give effect to orders/decisions passed after 14.9.2010 by President/Bishop	Details not available

28. A perusal of the details of cases filed before the conduct of elections would show that many of them were against the election notification dated 28.1.2010. In some of the cases, the challenge was on the ground that the impugned election notification issued as per the new bye-laws was null and void. In a couple of cases, an injunction was sought against Mr. D. Charles from acting as the Secretary of the institution.

29. All the cases filed after the elections, actually fall into two categories, viz. (a) those filed by persons supporting the Bishop and opposing the elected members of the Church Council; and (b) those filed by the elected Members of the Church Council itself or their supporters, against the Bishop. All the post election cases were filed on 14.9.2010 or thereafter. This date 14.9.2010 is of significance, since it was the date on which the President/Bishop issued the circular abrogating the powers of the Church Council and taking over the functions of the Church Council, in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 194 of the bye-laws. In many of the suits, there are interim orders for and against both the parties, leading to chaos and confusion.

30. Despite the fact that the registered office of TELC is situate in Tiruchirappalli, cases have been filed by both groups in various Courts, taking advantage of the fact that the elections to the Church Council are held in several tiers. Since the electorate is spread over about 10 Districts in the State, each party has justified the filing of the suit in several Courts, on the ground that a part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of that Court. In order to present a cross sectional analysis, of the Courts in which these cases have been filed, let me now list out the Courts where these matters are pending.

(1) District Munsif Court, Lalgudi, Trichy District;

(2) Sub Court, Madurai, Madurai District;

(3) Principal District Munsif Court, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District;

(4) Principal Sub Court, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District;

(5) Sub Court, Pattukottai, Thanjavur District;

(6) City Civil Court, Chennai;

(7) High Court, Madras;

(8) Sub Court, Periyakulam, Theni District;

(9) District Munsif Court, Kodaikanal, Dindigul District;

(10) III Asst. City Civil Court, Chennai;

(11) Principal District Munsif Court, Erode, Erode District;

(12) Sub Court, Palani, Dindigul District;

(13) Sub Court, Madurai, Madurai Distrcit;

(14) Sub Court, Thirumangalam, Madurai District;

(15) Sub Court, Ariyalur, Perambalur District;

(16) District Munsif Court, Tirupattur, Vellore District;

(17) District Munsif Court, Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram District;

(18) Sub Court, Dharapuram, Erode District;

(19) Sub Court, Trichy, Trichy District.

31. A critical analysis of the pleadings and the reliefs sought in those cases would show that the parties to the litigation fall into two groups, viz. (i) Bishop and his supporters; and (ii) the elected members of the Church Council and their supporters, headed by the Secretary Mr. D. Charles. Incidentally, it is stated across the bar that Mr. D. Charles, the present Secretary fielded his brother-in-law to contest for the post of Bishop/President against the present Bishop, but the present Bishop defeated him.

32. Now, let me have a look at the interim orders granted by various Courts which stare against each other.

Sl.	Interim orders working against the	Interim Orders working in favour of
No.	Bishop	the Bishop
1	In I.A.No.530 of 2010 in O.S.No.294 of	In I.A.No.186 of 2010 in O.S.No.130 of
	2010, the Sub Court, Palani has granted an	2010, the Sub Court, Ariyalur granted

Sl. No.	Interim orders working against the Bishop	Interim Orders working in favour of the Bishop
	interim injunction restraining the Bishop from enforcing Rules 128(3), 128(12) and 194 of the bye-laws.	an interim order restraining the elected Church Council Members, including the Secretary from interfering with the Bishop''s right to administer the institution. However, the suit was already struck of by virtue of an order passed by this Court in a revision petition.
2	In I.A.No.531 of 2010 in the same suit, the same Court has granted an interim mandatory injunction directing the Secretary and President to issue notification in respect of elections to Pastorate Committees, District Committees and Synod for the Triennium 2010-2013.	In I.A.No.622 of 2010 in O.S.No.182 of 2010, the District Munsif Court, Tirupattur, granted an interim order of injunction restraining the elected Church Council Members from interfering in the administration of the institution by the Bishop. (Injunction was restricted to all the defendants except 4th defendant (Secretary) and 6th defendant.
3	I.A.No.821 of 2010 in O.S.No.799 of 2010, the Sub Court, Madurai granted an interim mandatory injunction directing the Assistant Commissioner of Police to remove the lock put up in Central Office at Trichy.	I.A.No.878 of 2010 in O.S.No.433 of 2010, the District Munsif Court, Kancheepuram granted an interim injunction restraining the elected Church Council members from interfering with the administration of the institution by the President/ Bishop.
4	In I.A.No.822 of 2010 in the same suit, the same Court granted an interim stay of the operation of the circular issued by the Bishop/President under Rule 194, abrogating the powers of the Church Council.	In I.A.No.220 of 2010 in O.S.No.154 of 2010, the Sub Court, Ariyalur granted an interim injunction restraining the elected Church Council Members from interfering in the administration of the institution by the 9th defendant.
5	In I.A.No.823 of 2010 in O.S.No.800 of 2010, the Sub Court, Thirumangalam has granted an interim injunction restraining the Bishop from interfering with the functioning and working of the Church Council.
6	In I.A.No.824 of 2010 in O.S.No.800 of 2010, the same Court granted interim stay of the emergency circular issued by the Bishop/President under Rule 194.
7	In I.A.No.296 of 2010 in O.S.No.832 of 2010, the Sub Court, Thirumangalam, granted an interim injunction restraining the Bishop from functioning as President of TELC. This order was modified by me in CRP (MD) No.2026 of 2010 by order dated 7.10.2010.
8	In I.A.No.218 of 2010 in O.S.No.705 of

Sl. No.	Interim orders working against the Bishop	Interim Orders working in favour of the Bishop
	2010, the Sub Court, Thirumangalam granted an interim injunction restraining the Bishop/President from carrying on the administration independently in the absence of the Church Council.
9	In I.A.No.1119 of 2010 in O.S.No.1001 of 2010, the Sub Court, Trichy granted an interim injunction restraining the Bishop from interfering with the right of the elected members of the Church Council to administer the institution. (Against this order, the Bishop is before me by way of CRP).
10	In I.A.No.1120 of 2010 in O.S.No.1001 of 2010, the Sub Court, Trichy has also granted an interim order directing the Commissioner of Police, Trichy to break open the lock of the Central Office and to provide protection to them for functioning as elected Church Council Members. Though this order was stayed by me, the Central Office was broken open and the records taken, leading to a contempt petition.

33. Just as there are interim orders in favour of as well as against the rival groups (one supporting the Bishop and another headed by the Secretary), there are also allegations and counter allegations on both sides. The complaint of the Bishop against the elected Church Council is that they got together and sold several properties belonging to the institution, for throw away prices, without following a transparent procedure. One example cited by the Bishop/President is about a property in Brick Kiln Road, Perambur, comprising of land measuring an extent of 3300 sq.ft. The property was sold for Rs. 40.00 lacs and the sale deed shows that even the Sub Registrar valued the property at Rs. 68.00 lacs. It is common knowledge that one ground of land in that locality (2400 sq.ft.) costs not less than Rs. 1.00 crore. Therefore, I have no doubt in my mind that if that property had been their private property, the elected members of the Church Council would not have sold the same for Rs. 40.00 lacs.

34. The response of the elected Members of the Church Council to the above allegation is that the decision for the sale of the said property was taken in 2008 itself and that the Bishop/President was always part of the decision making process. Therefore, the elected Members of the Church Council defend their action on the ground that the Bishop/President cannot now accuse them in respect of a decision taken two years ago and to which the Bishop was a party. Moreover, it is the contention of the elected Members of the Church Council that the building located in the property had become dilapidated and that there were threats of encroachments as well as the potential threat of acquisition of a part of the land by the Government for a public purpose. Therefore, according to the Church Council, they had sold it for the best possible price in the given situation.

35. But the explanation offered by the elected members of the Church Council is hardly acceptable. Though the Bishop/President was part of the decision making process to sell the property, he was not part of the decision making process relating to (i) the procedure to be adopted for identifying the buyer; and (ii) the fixation of price. Apparently, the Secretary of Church Council never invited any offers from the public through wide advertisements. It is not known how the buyer was selected and how the price was fixed. The deal is only shrouded in secrecy and mystery. Therefore, the allegations of the Bishop/ President that the elected members of the Church Council have not taken care of the interest of the institution, cannot be brushed aside as unfounded or unjustified.

36. But, unfortunately for the Bishop/President, some of the elected members have repeatedly got elected even in the past. For instance Mr. D. Charles, the Secretary of the Society has been elected several times. After all, the institution is a Society registered under the Central Act and deemed to have been registered under the Tamil Nadu Act. Therefore, by virtue of the provisions of the statute and the bye-laws, the properties of the Society vest in the Committee of Management. If the General Body of the Society repeatedly elects such persons, irrespective of their acting in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the institution, it is not given to the Bishop/President to strike out the will of the majority. The saying that a nation gets a Government that it deserves would apply equally to Societies. Therefore, unless the General Body chooses to reject these candidates, for acting in a manner prejudicial to its interests, it may not really be possible for the Bishop/ President to set right everything by invoking Rule 194 and clamping emergency. An institution created on foundations of democracy has also to share the perils of democracy.

37. I have strong reasons for taking the above view. They are as follows:

(a) The elections for every Triennium are invariably marred by Court room battles. The elections for the Triennium 2004-2007 were stalled first by a writ petition in W.P. No. 2297 of 2004 and later, by a civil suit in C.S. No. 646 of 2005. Ultimately, the elections which ought to have been held in June 2004 were held only in May 2006 (after two years). Even before completion of a tenure of one year, the Triennium came to an end and fresh elections had to be announced in April 2007;

(b) The election notification issued in April 2007 was again stalled by several cases filed in various Courts, such as the District Munsif Court, Perambalur, District Munsif Court, Thiruvallur, City Civil Court, Chennai and this Court. Ultimately, after the interim orders passed in those suits were vacated, the elections announced in April 2007 were held in May 2008 resulting in the tenure of the elected members getting reduced from 3 years to two years;

(c) Again, the election notification issued in January 2010 for the 41st Triennial Synod (2010-2013) was attempted to be stalled, but due to the intervention of this Court, elections were held in May 2010. It is in the elections held in May 2010 that the present set of members of the Church Council came to be elected;

(d) The elections were conducted in May 2010 under the supervision of Mr. Justice J. Kanakaraj, a retired Judge of this Court, who was appointed by this Court;

(e) After the elections were held in May 2010, an attempt was made to stall the elected members from assuming office. But, the suit filed in O.S. No. 5401 of 2010 by one C. Rajasekaran, against the elected members, was stayed by this Court in a civil revision petition, seeking to strike off the plaint; and

(f) A second attempt was made to stall the elected members from effecting transfers, appointments etc. in O.S. No. 357 of 2010 filed by one Mr. Nicholson, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Perambalur. An interim order of status quo was granted in this case.

38. Therefore, invocation of the special powers under Rule 194, is not the panacea for the malaise afflicting Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church, which has unfortunately become Tamil Evangelical Litigation Church in the recent past. If elected members of the Church Council have no fear of sin or fear of God, it is impossible for anyone including the Bishop to instil that fear in them, by taking recourse to the powers under Rule 194.

39. Coming to the allegations thrown against the Bishop/President, there are at least two situations from which he has not, in my considered view, come out totally clean. They are (i) the appointment of Mr. Nicholson, the Plaintiff in O.S. No. 357 of 2010, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Perambalur, as the Cor Respondent of a school, which appears to be a reward for his filing the suit and getting an interim order which enured to the benefit of the Bishop; and (ii) the appointment of two persons who lost the elections to the Church Council in May 2010, as his advisors, after taking over the functions of the Church Council.

40. Rule 194 of the Bye-laws, as it stood before amendment, reads as follows:

Bishop''s Powers to deal with special emergency: In any case of special emergency, the Bishop shall have powers to assume the functions of any of the administrative or legislative committees, Councils and other bodies of the Church, for such time as may be necessary.

41. The amended Rule 194 reads as follows:

194. 1. When a situation has arisen in which the governance of the Church becomes more difficult, the President/Bishop may, by a proclamation of emergency to the congregation of the Church, assume the powers of the Church Council duly assisted by three Advisors of his choice.

2. If the unexpired period of three year term of the Synod is more than six months, fresh elections for the Church Council, for the unexpired period, shall be convened within two months by the existing Synod from the date of issue of proclamation. If the unexpired period of the term of the Synod is less than six months, fresh elections may be held for the election of the members of the CC by the new Synod in the normal way.

3. The proclamation shall contain detailed reasons for the abrogation of the Church Council.

42. It is in terms of the amended Rule 194 that the Bishop/President appointed three advisors, by his order dated 14.9.2001. But, unfortunately, two out of those three advisors were actually persons who contested the elections to the Church Council and lost. Therefore, the action of the Bishop/President, invoking Rule 194 and making the elected Council dummy would certainly lead to a suspicion that the Bishop/President was not happy about the out come of the elections, especially in the light of appointment of two defeated candidates as his advis Ors.

43. As a person accusing the elected members of the Church Council of financial impropriety (not without justification, in the light of the sale of the Perambur property), the Bishop/President should have kept his slate clean without any room for any allegation of nepotism. If a body of persons, elected in an election supervised by a retired Judge of this Court, is sought to be suspended and the defeated candidates are made to adorn the role of advisors thereafter, it would certainly lead to suspicion.

44. Thus, I find both parties to be not above board. While the allegations established prima facie against the Church Council members are very serious, the allegations thrown against the Bishop are far less serious. Under such circumstances, it has to be seen as to how best to resolve the problem at least temporarily, till the suits in which substantial issues are raised, are disposed of.

45. At least as far as one issue is concerned, I am happy to note that there was unanimity of opinion at the bar. All the learned Counsel, namely, M/s. G. Masilamani, T.V. Ramanujun, R. Muthukumaraswamy, P.S. Raman and Veera Kathiravan agreed fairly in Court that two directions are most essential in these cases. They are (i) that all the suits pending before various Courts should be transferred to one Court; and (ii) that all disputes relating to elections etc., to the TELC should be henceforth directed to be dealt with only by one Court, so as to prevent forum shopping and also to prevent various Courts issuing conflicting interim orders, thereby affecting the very credibility of the judicial institution.

46. As a matter of fact, the parties to this litigation have managed to obtain interim orders of unimaginable nature. For instance, the II Additional Sub Court, Madurai, sitting as a Camp Court in Sub Court, Thirumangalam had granted an interim order of injunction restraining the Bishop/President from functioning as such, at a time when admittedly the Bishop/President had already completed two years in Office. Similarly, the Sub Court, Tiruchirappalli granted two interim orders in I.A. Nos. 1119 and 1120 of 2010, out of which, the above revisions arise. As pointed out earlier, one was an order of injunction restraining the Bishop/President from preventing the Church Council Members from discharging their functions. This order was granted, despite a request by the counsel for the caveator (Bishop/President) for time to file counter, holding as though the caveator has no right or role at that stage. If this attitude of the Sub Judge, Tiruchirappalli is itself shocking, the manner in which he allowed the application for breaking open the lock and directing the Commissioner of Police to give protection and to file a report to the Court is much more shocking.

47. A careful scrutiny of - (i) the persons who had approached different Courts; (ii) the nature of the reliefs sought by them in those proceedings; and (iii) the interim orders that they have obtained so far, would show that the parties to this litigation have thoroughly exploited the weaknesses in the procedural law relating to territorial jurisdiction and exposed the fragility of the system of administration of justice, indulged in forum shopping and abused the process of law. The only way to prevent this onslaught on the system, is (i) to transfer all the cases to one Court; and (ii) to issue appropriate directions that would ensure that such cases are filed henceforth, only before one Court. Fortunately, all the learned senior counsel and other counsel appearing for the rival groups, agreed unanimously that these two directions are necessary, first to salvage the reputation of this institution and next to salvage, if possible, the glory of the institution involved in this battle.

48. As far as the power of this Court to order transfer is concerned, there is no dispute. The power is available both on the administrative side and on the judicial side. Sections 22 - 25 of the CPC have been held by the Apex Court to be exhaustive. Moreover, this Court also has power under Article 227. In Ranbir Yadav Vs. State of Bihar, , the Supreme court held that "under Article 227 of the Constitution of India every High Court has superintendence over all Courts and Tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction and that this power of superintendence entitles the High Court to pass orders for administrative exigency and expediency". When it was contended in that case that administrative power could not be exercised at a stage when judicial power was not only available and operational, but also effective and efficacious, the Apex court held that " so long as the power is exercised without impinging upon the rights of parties, it cannot be held that administrative powers must yield place to judicial powers simply because they co exist."

49. Again, in Kulwinder Kaur @ Kulwinder Gurcharan Singh Vs. Kandi Friends Education Trust and Others, , the Supreme Court pointed out that the power u/s 24 is comprehensive and that it can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings, either on an application or even suo motu. Therefore, there is no judicial impediment for passing appropriate orders as stated above, so that multiplicity of proceedings, conflict of orders and forum shopping are prevented.

50. I am conscious of the fact that all the Plaintiffs and Defendants in all the suits and other proceedings listed in para 27 above are not before me. But as stated earlier, the suits fall under 2 categories, namely (i) pre election and (ii) post election. All pre election suits have already been ordered to be transferred to the Principal City Civil Court, by another learned Judge. It is only in those suits that there are some parties who have a personal interest in the outcome of the proceedings, since their contest to the Church Council may be in issue therein. But in all post election disputes, the real contest is only between the Bishop/President or his supporters on the one hand and the Church Council or its supporters on the other hand. The real adversaries (or the beneficiaries) of the post election disputes are only these 2 warring groups. They are very effectively represented herein and hence there is no impediment for passing the orders of transfer.

51. Having arrived upon the above course of action, we may now have to sort out the kind of interim arrangement that could be put in place, till the suits in which core issues are fought, are disposed of. Today, there is an elected Church Council comprising of eight members. Though they were elected in May 2010 and were holding office, the Bishop/President invoked Rule 194 and abrogated their functions by an order dated 14.9.2010. However, the elected members have obtained an injunction against the Bishop/President, though in a questionable manner. But, the Bishop has taken a stand that the order dated 14.9.2010 under Rule 194 was passed before he received a copy of the order of injunction. In pursuance of the said order dated 14.9.2010, the Bishop/President has also effected lot of transfers and postings from 15.9.2010 onwards on the ground that the elected members of the Church Council who happen to be the Correspondents of the educational institutions, have swindled huge amounts of money. The Bishop has filed Bank Statements to prove this allegation. The statements disclose withdrawal of huge amounts. But the elected representatives claim that those withdrawals were for payment of salaries. Without a full fledged enquiry, it is not easy to find out the truth.

52. Thus, the parties have vied with one another in over reaching the orders of Court and outwitting each other. In such circumstances, I am of the view that Justice J. Kanakaraj, (Retd.) could be appointed as an Administrator, to control the affairs of the Church Council and to effect a temporary truce between the two rival groups. The learned Judge was appointed as Observer on earlier occasions to the very same body and is familiar with the objects and functions of the body. Clipping the wings of both the groups and reducing their control over the financial resources, may perhaps restore peace and harmony.

53. Therefore, the revisions and the contempt petitions are disposed of with the following directions:

(a) Mr. Justice J. Kanakaraj, (Retd.) is appointed as the Administrator of Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church;

(b) The Church Council elected in May 2010, with the Bishop as its President shall henceforth function, till the disposal of the main suits (for which separate directions are issued hereunder), under the guidance, supervision and control of the Administrator;

(c) The elected Members of the Church Council, who have opened (or broken opened) the Central Office of the institution at Trichy and taken over the records, pursuant to the interim order passed by the Sub Judge, Trichy, shall hand over all the records to the Administrator within a week;

(d) The Bishop/President shall hand over all the records relating to the transfers, postings and appointments made on and from 14.9.2010, to the Administrator. The Administrator shall scrutinise these records, hear the parties affected by such transfers, postings and appointments and pass appropriate orders, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Those orders shall be binding on (i) the Bishop/President; (ii) the Church Council; and (iii) persons who are subjected to such transfers and postings. I am making the decision of the Administrator binding even on the persons who are subjected to transfers and postings, for the simple reason that though the Church Council has challenged such transfers and postings ordered by the Bishop/President after 14.9.2010, those affected parties have not chosen to come to Court. Therefore, I am making them bound by the decision of the Administrator, especially in view of the fact that the Administrator has also been directed to hear them before passing final orders;

(e) All meetings of the Church Council shall be held henceforth, under the supervision and control of the Administrator. If there is any conflict of opinion between the Bishop/President on the one hand and the elected Church Council on the other hand, the Administrator shall find out what is good for the institution and take appropriate decision. His decision shall be final and binding on the Church Council and the Bishop/President;

(f) All the suits, listed in the annexure to this order, (other than those pre election suits which have already been ordered to be transferred to the Principal City Civil Court, Chennai, by an earlier order) shall stand transferred to the file of the Principal District Court, Tiruchirappalli, who shall allot all of them to any one of the additional District Courts (or Fast Track Courts). The Court to which all the suits are transferred, shall segregate the cases category wise and first take up for hearing, only those suits (i) where the elections to the Triennium 2010-2013 are substantially under challenge; and (ii) where the emergency circular dated 14.9.2010 issued by the Bishop/President is under challenge. Since some of the pre election suits have been transferred to the Principal City Civil Court, Chennai by judicial order dated 18.10.2010 by R.S. Ramanathan, J, and also since some of the parties to those suits are not before me, I am unable to order re-transfer of all those suits from the Principal City Civil Court, Chennai to the Principal District Court, Tiruchirappalli. However, the parties are directed to take out appropriate application within two weeks on the appellate side of this Court for transfer of even those suits which have already been transferred to the Principal City Civil Court, Chennai, so that they shall also be transferred to the Principal District Court, Tiruchirappalli.

(g) If in the suits so taken up for hearing first, the election of the present body of Church Council (elected in May 2010) is upheld and in addition, if the circular issued under Rule 194 by the Bishop/President is also set aside, then, the Administrator shall demit office and hand over charge to the Church Council represented by the Secretary. On the other hand, if the elections held in May 2010 are held to be invalid or if the elections as well as the emergency circular are upheld, then, the Administrator shall proceed to conduct fresh elections as per the bye laws;

(h) Till the first batch of suits segregated as per the preceding clauses are taken up for hearing and disposed of, none of the immovable properties of the institution shall be sold or encumbered in any manner;

(i) All transfers, postings and appointments to all educational and other institutions, which are considered necessary by the Bishop/President and/or by the Church Council, shall be placed in a meeting of the Church Council, convened under the supervision of the Administrator. If there is unanimity of opinion among the elected members and the President, those transfers, postings and appointments shall take place. If there is divergence of opinion, the same shall be resolved by the Administrator and his decision shall be final;

(j) The Administrator shall be present in all the meetings of the Church Council. All decisions taken in the meetings of the Church Council without any conflict between the Bishop/President on the one hand and the elected Members on the other hand, shall stand approved. But, if there is conflict of opinion between the Bishop/President on the one hand and the elected Members on the other hand, then, the Administrator shall take a decision which shall be binding upon the Church Council;

(k) Since the flow of funds and control over properties whose values keep mounting, have been the root cause for all the problems faced by the institution and also since the Administrator may find it extremely difficult to look after even the distribution of the monthly salaries to the staff of all the institutions, I am of the view that the salaries of the teaching and non teaching staff of the educational institutions run by TELC, with the grant in aid received from the State Government, shall be arranged to be paid directly to the employees through the Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education or the local school educational authorities. The Administrator shall take necessary steps within 3 weeks to write to the School/Collegiate Education authorities to henceforth make direct payment to the staff through electronic clearing system or other modes as prevalent in Government educational institutions.

(l) Since it was represented that due to the stalemate created by both parties, several payments could not be made to the Orphanages run by TELC and to the retired Pastors, the Administrator is requested to disburse such payments as are actually due, before Christmas, so that those innocent beneficiaries do not become victims of this (un)holy war, especially at a time when their festival season commences;

(m) No suit or other original proceedings, touching upon (i) the elections to the Synod, the Church Council and Bishop/President; and (ii) the management and administration of TELC, shall henceforth be entertained by any Court other than the Principal District Court, Tiruchirappalli, within whose jurisdiction the registered office of TELC is situate. It shall be open to the Principal District Court, Tiruchirappalli to assign those cases to any of the additional District Courts or Fast Track Courts. But, this restriction shall not apply to the employees of the various institutions run by TELC, to ventilate their individual grievances, before appropriate authorities/Courts;

(n) The Administrator shall be paid a remuneration of Rs. 30,000/-per month, apart from reimbursement of the expenses incurred by him towards the discharge of his duties. It will be open to the Administrator to engage the services of one or two secretarial staff, to assist him. The remuneration of such staff shall be fixed by him and the same shall also be reimbursed by the institution;

(o) All routine and regular payments, in respect of which there is no conflict between the Bishop/President and the Church Council, shall be continued to be made in the same manner as is done in normal times or by way of cheques signed by the President and Treasurer. Expenditure/payments in respect of which there is a controversy, shall be placed before the Administrator for his decision. If the Administrator approves an expenditure/payment, the President as well as the Treasurer shall sign the cheques for effecting such payments;

(p) To avoid any controversy and to clear all doubts regarding the role of the Administrator, it is clarified that the Administrator is not appointed as a substitute for the Church Council. He is appointed only as a Supervisor and a Facilitator, with powers to step in, whenever there is a conflict of opinion or clash of interests between the Bishop/President on the one hand and the Church Council on the other hand. In respect of decisions taken by consensus by both groups (President and Church Council), the Administrator would have no independent say;

(q) The arrangement made as above, shall continue till the disposal of the first set of cases by the Court to which they now stand transferred, or till the next elections. If it so happens that the elections themselves (to the next Triennium or even to the remaining period of the present Triennium) become due to be held even during the regime of the Administrator, the Administrator himself shall ensure free and fair elections and hand over charge to the newly elected Body;

(r) All interim orders passed by all courts in the cases listed in the table in paragraph 27 above, shall stand superseded to the extent they are in conflict with the directions issued herein above; and

(s) The Administrator is at liberty to seek appropriate directions as and when necessary.

The civil revisions petitions are disposed of on the above terms. The contempt petitions are closed, with the hope that both parties will extend their whole hearted co-operation to the Administrator and avoid any further act of contempt. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, M.P. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2010 in both the revision petitions are closed.

Rt. Rev. Dr. H.A. Martin and Samuel Gunaseelaraj Vs The Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church and Others

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

Hon'ble Bench

Advocates

Acts Referred

Judgement Text

Rajesh Shivhare Vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

Dharmendra Kansana Vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

From The Blog

Madras High Court to Hear School’s Plea Against State Objection to RSS Camp on Campus

Delhi High Court Quashes Ban on Medical Students’ Inter-College Migration, Calls Rule Arbitrary

Quick Actions

Case Metadata

Referenced Acts & Sections

Stay Updated