IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 30501 of 2008(F)
1. FR.ISSAC MATTAMMAL, S/O.M.I.MATHAI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM.
... Respondent
2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
4. FR.JOHN PUNNACHALIL, VICAR,
For Petitioner :SRI.HARISH R. MENON
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :16/10/2008
O R D E R
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
-----------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.30501 OF 2008 F
-----------------------------------------------------
DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2008
J U D G M E N T
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The petitioner is one of the Vicars of the St.Mary’s Orthodox
Church, Kandanadu. The 4th respondent is another Vicar. They
belong to Orthodox and Jacobite factions respectively. The right to
administer the said church and its properties is the subject-matter
of a suit pending before the District Court, Ernakulam. Exhibit P1 is
the interim order passed in that suit. The said order reads as
follows:
“Heard. There are two priests already in the
church. No other priests or any religious dignitary
than the present priests should be allowed to officiate
the prayers or Holy Mass or any other functions in the
church. The present priests and the Receiver are
directed to comply with this order peremptorily.”
The petitioner submits, the 4th respondent is bound by that order.
While so, the said respondent has published Exhibit P2 hand bill,
which deals with the proposed visit of the Patriarch of Antioch
Moron Mar Ignatius Zaka-I who is the supreme head of the Jacobite
faction. There is also a proposal to declare late Mar Baselious Bava
W.P.(C)No.30501/08 -2-
as a Saint. He is already beatified. The declaration of him as a Saint by
the Patriarch is also proposed to be done in the premises of the
aforementioned church. The petitioner submits, such actions from the
part of the 4th respondent will amount to violation of Exhibit P1 interim
order of the civil court. Therefore, the petitioner has filed Exhibit P3
representation before the police, informing them that the entry into the
church by the religious dignitaries as proposed under Exhibit P2 will
amount to violation of Exhibit P1 order and therefore, the police may take
effective steps to prevent their entry into the St.Mary’s Orthodox Church
or the High School owned by it. At present, the church is under the
administration of a receiver appointed by the civil court. On the motion
made by the petitioner and others, the said receiver has also addressed
the Sub Inspector of Police, Udayamperoor, the 3rd respondent herein to
take steps to ensure that no other priests or religious dignitaries other
than the present priests are allowed to officiate the prayers or Holly Mass
or any other functions in the church. The petitioner submits,
the police convened a conference of all parties and the attitude of the
police officers was in favour of the faction represented by the 4th
respondent and hostile to the petitioner’s faction. So, apprehending that
the police may not take any effective action to prevent the
entry of unauthorised persons in the church, which if happens may
W.P.(C)No.30501/08 -3-
develop into a law and order problem, this Writ Petition is filed, seeking
appropriate reliefs.
2. When a foreign dignitary is visiting a place in the State, we are
sure, the police will not fail to maintain law and order. We find no reason
to act upon the apprehension of the petitioner. Further, if Exhibit P1 is
violated by the 4th respondent, the petitioner’s remedy is to move the
court which passed Exhibit P1. The police have no power or authority to
look into the violation of Exhibit P1 and take remedial action. Of course,
the police can act to enforce Exhibit P1, if so ordered by the civil court,
which passed Exhibit P1. Since the police does not have any power or
authority or duty to look into violation of Exhibit P1, not to speak of
apprehended violation of Exhibit P1, this Court cannot issue a writ of
mandamus to the police to do that.
In the result, the Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed.
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE.
M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE.
dsn