Fr.A.V.Varghese vs State Of Kerala

,,

P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J",,

COMMON JUDGMENT,,

Exhibit P3 is an order dated 7.8.2019 passed by the Prl.Munsiff, Kottayam. Ext P5 is an order dated 6.11.2019 directing the District Collector,",,

Kottayam, and District Police Chief, Kottayam to afford adequate police protection to implement Ext P3 order passed by the Munsiff Court. We are",,

celebrating the second anniversary of Ext P3 order. Ext P3 is an order passed by the civil court subject to the final decision of O.S.No.654 of 2017,,

pending before the Prl.Munsiff, Kottayam. The suit originated in connection with a rift between two factions of the Christian community and they are",,

generally known as Orthodox and Jacobite. The law enforcing authority is not able to implement an order passed by a competent civil court even after,,

two years. It is nothing but a shame.,,

PLEADINGS,,

2.The 7th respondent herein is St.Marthasmooni Church which is a constituent parish church of Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church (hereinafter,,

referred to as Malankara Church) coming within the Kottayam Diocese. According to the petitioner, he is the Vicar of the 7th respondent appointed",,

by the Diocesan Metropolitan of the Diocese of Kottayam in accordance with the Malankara Church Constitution of 1934. The case of the petitioner,,

is that respondents No. 8 to 15 are the members of the erstwhile Jacobite/Patriarch Faction, which disassociated with Malankara Church and formed",,

a new Sabha called ""Yacobaya Suriyani Christiani Sabha"" governed by the 2002 constitution adopted by them on 8.6. 2002. According to the",,

petitioner, respondents No. 8 and 9 holding out to be the priests of the erstwhile Patriarch faction, now priests of 2002 sabha, claiming to be the Vicar",,

and Assistant Vicar of the 7th respondent church. It is submitted by the petitioner that they started to create a parallel administration in the 7th,,

respondent Malankara Church. It is the specific case of the petitioner that they are not priests, either ordained or appointed, in accordance with the",,

Malankara Church Constitution of 1934. The case of the petitioner is that respondent Nos.8 to 15 clamour for a different setup and parallel service in,,

the Churches of Malankara Church, especially in the 7th respondent church. A five Judge bench of the apex court in Moran Mar Baselios Catholicos",,

v. Thukalan Paulo Avira (1958 KLT 721) held that the 1934 Constitution is valid and binding on all parish churches of the Malankara Church.,,

Thereafter, the apex court in several subsequent decisions declared the validity of 1934 Constitution.",,

The petitioner filed O.S.No.654 of 2017, which is a suit filed as a representative suit under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code before the",,

Munsiff Court, Kottayam for a permanent prohibitory injunction against respondent Nos.8 to 13. Ext P1 in WP(C) No.14191 of 2021 is the plaint in the",,

above suit. Defendants 1 to 7 in the suit are respondents No.7 to 13 in these writ petitions. Ext P2 is the written statement filed by respondent Nos.7,",,

8, and 10 to 12 in the suit. In Ext P2 it is contended that the 7th respondent church had adopted the 2002 Constitution and is thus now a constituent of",,

Yacobaya Suriyani Christiani Sabha. In the suit, the petitioner filed I.A No.3746 of 2017 for a temporary injunction, and the same was allowed as per",,

Ext P3 order. The relevant portion of Ext P3 is extracted hereunder:,,

“15.Point No.4:- In view of the findings in point Nos.1 to 3, this petition is to be allowed.",,

In the result, the petition is allowed with costs and the counter petitioners two to seven and their men and their agents and supporters and anybody claiming under",,

them who does not abide by 1934 Constitution of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church or their hierarchies there under are restrained by an order of temporary,,

prohibitory injunction till the disposal of the suit from bringing priests and prelates not appointed under 1934 Constitution to conduct any religious service in the first,,

counter petitioner church, its cemetery, other institution and the second and third counter petitioners and any Vicars, Prelates who are not appointed by the Diocesan",,

Metropolitan under the Constitution from entering into the first counter petitioner church; its cemetery, parish hall, shrine, school, and also from causing any",,

obstruction to the petitioner and his successors appointed by the Diocesan Metropolitan in accordance with 1934 Constitution from conducting religious services in,,

the first counter petitioner church and its institution situated in the plaint schedule properties.â€​,,

Respondent Nos.9 and 13 in this writ petition filed CMA No.80 of 2019 and respondent Nos.7, 8, and 10 to 12 filed CMA No. 83 of 2019 before the",,

District Court, Kottayam challenging Ext P3 order. The appellate court after considering the entire facts confirmed Ext P3 order as per Ext P4",,

common judgment dated 26.9.2019 in CMA Nos.80 of 2019 and 83 of 2019. It is the further case of the petitioner that respondent Nos.8 to 13 are not,,

obeying Ext P3 as affirmed in Ext P4. Hence I.A No.2796 of 2019 is filed seeking police protection for implementing Ext P3 order. The learned,,

Munsiff allowed the petition by order dated 6.11.2019 and Ext P5 is the order. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the District Collector, Kottayam",,

with a representation. The District Collector, Kottayam called for a meeting of all the parties on 22.11.2019. Ext P8 is the minutes of the meeting. In",,

Ext P8, it was observed that implementation of Ext P5 will result in the law and order situation and it was decided to wait for the judgment of the apex",,

court. The grievance of the petitioner is that Ext P3 order is flouted by the contesting respondents in these writ petitions and even after Ext P4 order,,

directing the District Administration and police to afford adequate police protection, the District Administration and the police is not taking any action.",,

Hence, WP(C) No.35613 of 2019 was filed with the following prayers.",,

(i) to direct respondents 1 to 6 to afford adequate and effective Police Protection to the petitioner to conduct religious services in the 7th respondent church and to,,

the other parishioners of the 7th respondent Church in participating such religious services without any let, hindrance or obstruction from respondents 8 to 13, their",,

men, agents or followers and anybody claiming under them and to implement Ext P5 by the issue of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or",,

direction, in the interests of justice;",,

ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents 1 to 6 to act strictly adhering to the decision of the Hon'ble",,

Supreme Court reported in 2017 (3) KLT 261 (SC)= 2017 (15)SCC 333 and Ext P5, ensuring that no priest or prelate appointed otherwise than in accordance with",,

Malankara Church Constitution of 1934 conduct any sacraments including Holy Mass in the 7th respondent church, its chapels, cemetery or the appurtenant",,

buildings thereto.,,

iii) To grant any other further or consequential reliefs, including any interim reliefs, as may be prayed for and deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court; and",,

iv) To allow this Writ Petition with costs.,,

Â,,

When the writ petition came up for final hearing, this Court doubted the maintainability of such a writ petition in the light of Ext P5 police protection",,

order already passed by the Munsiff Court. Therefore, the petitioner filed W.P(C) No.14191 of 2021 with the following prayers.",,

i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing Respondents 1 and 6 to invoke powers vested on them under Chapters VIII and X of the",,

Code of Criminal Procedure in order to maintain public order and tranquillity in 7th respondent Marthasmooni Church, Thiruvarppu, Kottayam.",,

ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 6 to act in aid of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as they are bound to do as per",,

Article 144 of the Constitution of India thereby giving effect to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.S.Varghese case [2017 (3) KLT 261],,

iii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondents 3 and 6 to invoke the provisions of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 especially",,

Sections 63 and 67 in order to ensure prevention of any untoward incident in 7th respondent Marthasmooni Church, Thiruvarppu Kottayam",,

iv) To direct respondents 1 to 6 to afford adequate and effective Police Protection to the petitioner to conduct religious services in the 7th respondent church and to,,

the parishioners of the 7th respondent Church in participating such religious services without any let, hindrance or obstruction from respondents 8 to 15, their men,",,

agents or followers and anybody claiming under them in implementation of the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of India in K S Varghese vs.St.Peter's and,,

Paul's Syrian Orthodox Church 2017(3) KLT 261 by issue of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, in the interests of justice.",,

v) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents 1 to 6 to act strictly adhering to the decision of the Hon'ble",,

Supreme Court reported in 2017 (3) KLT 261 (SC) = 2017 (15) SCC 333 and Exhibit P5, ensuring that no priest or prelate appointed otherwise than in accordance with",,

Malankara Church Constitution of 1934 conduct any sacraments including Holy Mass in the 7th respondent church, its chapels, cemetery or the appurtenant",,

buildings thereto and to handover possession of the church to the petitioner, which has been taken possession in pursuance of Exhibit P13 order dated 13.8.2020",,

vi) To grant any other further or consequential reliefs, including any interim reliefs, as may be prayed for and deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court .",,

Respondent Nos. 7 and 10 to 13 in WP(C) No.35613 of 2019 filed a counter affidavit. A separate counter affidavit was filed by respondent Nos. 14,,

& 15 also. After filing WP(C) No.14191 of 2021, a separate counter affidavit was filed in WP(C) No.14191 of 2021 by respondent Nos. 14 & 15 with",,

almost the same averments in their counter affidavit filed in WP(C) No.35613 of 2019. In the counter affidavits, the contesting respondents also",,

dispute the maintainability of the writ petition. They narrate their case in the suit in detail and defend their stand.,,

Â,,

The main contention of respondent Nos. 14 and 15 in the counter is that the Managing Committee of the Malankara Church has not followed the,,

precedents and provisions prescribed under the 1934 Constitution. According to respondents No. 14 and 15, the preaching and propagating the concept",,

of 'Throne of St.Thomas' among the church members is against the 1934 Constitution. According to them, the Malankara Metropolitan make",,

appointments of Diocesan Metropolitan only from the list of Bishops supplied by a duly consecrated catholicos. It is stated in the affidavit that the 1934,,

Constitution does not permit the Managing Committee of the Malankara Church to function without the aid and advice of a consecrated catholicos.,,

Their contention is that, all appointments made by the Malankara Metropolitan elected by the Malankara Association after 1995 are illegal and void ab",,

initio. It is further stated in the affidavit that the Malankara Association of the Malankara Church has elected Malankara Metropolitan after the,,

judgment in PMA Metropolitan's Case (AIR 1995 SC 2001)Â in 1995. But the Managing Committee has not interested to invite Patriarch for taking,,

consecration of catholicos. According to the respondents, the elected Metropolitan has started functioning as a self-styled Catholicos. According to",,

them, the 1934 Constitution does not permit the Managing Committee to recognize self-styled Catholicos. It is further stated that the parish members",,

of respondent No. 7, St. Marthasmooni Church do not recognize St.Thomas as the founder of any church. According to them, it is believed that",,

authority and blessings for the establishment of the church were given to St.Peter by Lord Jesus Christ. Patriarch of the Universal Syrian Orthodox,,

Church Antioch is believed to be sitting on the 'Throne of St.Peter Church'. Therefore, the 7 sacraments of the church would be performed by those",,

priests who were ordained and appointed in the hierarchy having ecclesiastical succession from the Patriarch Antioch. It is also stated that the,,

petitioner and his men intend to take possession of the church premises after evicting all the parish members from the church. It is also the case of,,

respondent Nos. 14 and 15 that the petitioner/ plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit and there is no cause of action arose as alleged. According to,,

them, the appointment of the petitioner as Vicar is not legal and proper. They approached the court below with an impleading petition and the same",,

was allowed. But the application for vacating Ext.P3 order has been kept pending. The powers of this Court under Article 226 to interfere in this,,

matter is also questioned by respondent Nos.14 and 15 in detail in the counter. It is also stated that Ext R14(a) is filed by the District Collector before,,

the Munsiff Court for certain clarifications and therefore, this Court may not pass any order at this stage. It is also stated that, if Ext P3 order is",,

implemented, that will virtually amount to the execution of a decree and the suit will be infructuous. Each prayer mentioned in WP(C) No.14191 of",,

2021 is extracted, in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent Nos.14 and 15 and said that such a prayer will not stand and this Court may not pass",,

any orders in this writ petition. This is the sum and substance of the counter.,,

 INTERIM ORDERS PASSED IN THIS CASE PENDING THE WRIT PETITION,,

Admittedly, the petitioner filed two writ petitions and the first one is WP(C) No.35613 of 2019. When that writ petition came up for consideration",,

before this Court, this Court issued notice to the contesting respondents. Thereafter on 21.1.2020 this Court passed the following order in WP(C)",,

No.35613 of 2019.,,

“ The petitioner claims that he is the Vicar of the seventh respondent-St.Marthasmooni Church. He approached the Munsiff's Court, Kottayam, in O.S.No.654/2017",,

for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants therein. The genesis of the dispute is traceable to a dispute between two factions of the Church i.e,",,

Orthodox and Jacobite.,,

Though, the management and administration of such a Church in the State has been decided by the judgment of the Apex Court, still the dispute has not been",,

subsided. There are issues in regard to management and administration. It is accordingly, the petitioner approached the Munsiff's Court for injunction. The Munsiff's",,

Court also granted a temporary prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants therein, who are arrayed as respondents 8 to 13 herein from interfering with the",,

management and administration and conduct of religious services in accordance with the 1934, Constitution. Ext.P3 is the said order. This was also affirmed to",,

appellate Court in appeal (Ext.P4).,,

Taking note of the fact that there is breach of violation of Ext.P3 order, the Munsiff's Court passed Ext.P5 order of police protection. The petitioner's case is that in",,

spite of order of police protection passed by the Munsiff's Court, the police is not providing protection to the petitioner.",,

The learned Counsel for the party respondents submitted that they challenged the order before this Court and notice has also been issued in it and therefore, the",,

Court should not pass any order of police protection. It is further submitted that the petitioner's remedy is to approach the civil court for implementing the order.,,

The party respondents also have a case that the Apex Court judgment cannot be followed in this case as the present dispute is not a matter covered by the Apex,,

Court judgment.,,

The learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that in the light of the civil court order, the police had registered four crimes.",,

The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the petitioner could not enter into the Church and administer, manage and provide religious services.",,

As revealed from the submission of the learned Senior Government Pleader, based on the complaints made by the petitioner crimes have been registered. In such",,

circumstances, it is appropriate that the fifth respondent provides necessary police protection to the petitioner in the light of the interim order passed by the civil",,

court. Mere registration of the crime would not be sufficient. Necessary police personnel shall deployed to ensure that the orders of civil court are complied with.,,

This Court cannot ignore the law and order as well as flouting of the orders of the civil court by the party respondents. If any wrongful action on the part of the party,,

respondents persist, the police shall invoke Section 151 of the Criminal Procedure Code.â€​",,

Thereafter the above writ petition again came up for consideration on 13.8.2020 on which date this Court passed the following order.,,

“Read order dated 21.01.2020.,,

The learned counsel the petitioner submitted that in spite of the interim order passed by this Court, the petitioner-Vicar of the 7th respondent-St. Marthasmooni",,

Church, is unable to function as the Vicar. It is to be noted that the civil court passed a detailed order in this matter acknowledging the right of the petitioner. The",,

appeal filed by the contesting respondents also has been dismissed.,,

The learned counsel for the party respondents submitted that they are contemplating to challenge the order in appeal before this Court.,,

The learned counsel for the petitioner points out to Ext.P9 affidavit filed by the District Collector before the civil court. In the affidavit, the District Collector pointed",,

out that in the order of the civil court, nothing has been mentioned about the manner in which the Church has to be opened if it is in a locked stage. The District",,

Collector, himself is seeking a direction from the civil court in what manner the civil court order has to be implemented. In that affidavit, it is also pointed out that the",,

defendants in the suit were not ready to handover the key to the plaintiff. All that reflected in the affidavit of the District Collector is that there is a law and order,,

situation. The crimes have been also registered.,,

Having adverted to the factual circumstances as above, it is appropriate the District Collector keeps the Church premises under lock and key. The District Collector",,

shall not allow the party respondents to use the Church or its premises. The District Collector shall also inform this Court when the Church and its premises can be,,

handed over to the petitioner. Needful shall be done by the District Collector within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.â€​,,

Again the matter came up on 19.8.2020, and on that day this Court passed the following order.",,

“The police shall deploy necessary personnel today night to see that no inventaries taken or any destruction to the church building is caused.,,

The learned Govt. Pleader is directed to communicate this order.,,

Post on 24.8.2020.â€​,,

Thereafter the matter came up for consideration on 24.8.2020, on which date this Court recorded the following submissions.",,

“The learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader submits that the Church and its premises have been taken over by the District,,

Collector through Revenue Divisional Officer. The said submission is recorded.,,

Post on 8.9.2020.â€​,,

Â,,

The order dated 19.8.2020 and 13.8.2020 in WP(C) No.35613 of 2019 was challenged by respondents No.14 and 15 by filing W.A.No.1156 of,,

2020. The writ appeal was also dismissed by this Court by a detailed judgment on 16.10.2020. Thereafter the matter again came up for consideration,,

before this Court on 8.1.2021. On that date, the Government Pleader submitted that the District Collector requires some time to fix the date of handing",,

over the premises. Thereafter WP(C)No.35613 of 2019 and W.P(C)No.14191 of 2021 came up for final hearing before this Court.,,

Heard Senior Counsel S.Sreekumar, who is instructed to appear for the petitioner. Additional Advocate General appeared for the official",,

respondents. I also heard Advocate Lithin Thomas for respondents No.14 and 15.,,

RESOLUTION,,

Admittedly there is an order of injunction passed by the Civil Court as evident by Ext P3 in WP(C)No. 14191 of 2021. (I will refer to the exhibits,,

in WPC No.14191 of 2021 hereafter). In Ext P3, the civil court clearly stated that the counter petitioners 2 to 7 and their men in that application and",,

their agents and supporters and anybody claiming under them who does not abide by 1934 Constitution of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church or,,

their hierarchy there under are restrained by an order of temporary prohibitory injunction till the disposal of the suit, from bringing priests and prelates",,

not appointed under 1934 constitution to conduct any religious service in the first counter petitioner church its cemetery, other institution and second",,

and third counter petitioners in that application and any Vicar and prelates who are not appointed by the diocesan Metropolitan under the constitution,,

from entering into the first counter petitioner church its cemetery, parish hall, shrine, school and also from causing any obstruction to the petitioner and",,

his successors appointed by the diocesan Metropolitan in accordance with 1934 Constitution from conducting religious services in the first counter,,

petitioner church and its institution situated in the plaint schedule properties. The interim order passed by the civil court is clear and there is no,,

ambiguity in it. Ext P3 order is confirmed by the appellate court as evident by Ext P4 common judgment. The main contentions of the contesting,,

respondents in this writ petition is that the petitioner is not a person appointed as per 1934 Constitution. It is also the case of the contesting respondent,,

that the civil court has not considered the entire facts before passing Ext P3 order. Some more contentions challenging the findings in Ext P3 order are,,

raised in the counter affidavit. According to me, those are not relevant while considering this writ petition. Admittedly, Ext P3 order is in force even",,

now. It is also an admitted fact that even after Ext P5 order passed by the civil court directing the District Administration and the District Police Chief,,

to implement Ext P3 order, they are not able to implement Ext P3 order till now. The stand of the District Administration and the police is that there is",,

law and order problem to implement Ext P3 order. I am surprised to see such a stand from the District Administration and the police department.,,

When a court of law passed an order and if there is any violation of the same, it is the duty of the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 to see that the court",,

order is protected. We are living in a country where rule of law is prevailing. The contesting respondents contend that the order passed by the civil,,

court is wrong. Then there are remedies available to the contesting respondents. If the order is not implemented by the District Administration, and the",,

police department as per the directions passed by the civil court, then also the contesting respondents have got remedy by reporting the same to the",,

civil court. If the civil court is not taking any action, the contesting respondents have got remedy by way of appeal and even by approaching this Court",,

under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The contesting respondents cannot create havoc in the church when the petitioner is coming to the,,

church because of Ext P3 order. If the petitioner exceeds the right given to him as per Ext P3 order, the remedy of the contesting respondents is not",,

to agitate in front of the church or to obstruct the police and District Administration who are trying to implement Ext P3 order. If the petitioner or the,,

District Administration or the police has done anything in violation of Ext P3 order, the remedy of the contesting respondent is to report the same",,

before the civil court and not to lock the gate of the church and to protest against the same. That is not the behavior expected from the contesting,,

respondent in a civilized society. Of course, they may have a difference of opinion or they may have a case that the order passed by the civil court is",,

not implemented properly. But they have no authority to obstruct the same by blocking the petitioner or the District administration or the police,,

authority when they came there to implement the court order. The Civil Procedure Code is a complete code. All the grievances of the parties are,,

protected by definite provisions in the Civil Procedure Code. A citizen cannot go to the street and protest against the order passed by the civil court.,,

The remedy is to go to the civil court which passed the order and show that this order is illegal. If that court is not inclined to hear the same, they can",,

approach the appellate court or this court or apex court. If the lower court is not hearing the matter expeditiously they can invoke the powers of this,,

court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. No citizen can obstruct the District Administration or police when they are trying to implement an,,

order passed by a court of law. Once an order is passed by a court of law, the parties are bound by the same. The District Administration and the",,

police are bound to implement those orders. If a party to the lis has got a grievance that the implementation of the order passed by the civil court is not,,

as per the direction of the civil court, the remedy of the party is not to protest in the street. They can go to the same court and report the same. The",,

same court is bound to consider the grievance and pass appropriate orders. Suppose that court dismisses their objection, as I said earlier, they can",,

approach the superior courts. An action to implement the directions of the court cannot be obstructed by any person unless there are specific reasons.,,

Yet another contention raised by respondents No.14 and 15 is that Ext R14(a) filed by the District Administration is pending before the Munsiff Court,,

and this Court may not pass any order till the same is disposed of. They also submitted that they filed a petition to vacate Ext P3 order and that is also,,

pending. According to me, the District Administration and the police authorities need not wait, till Ext R14(a) and other petitions are finally disposed of",,

by the Court below. There is no stay of Ext P3 order. As long as that order is in force, the parties are bound by the same subject to the",,

clarification/modification, if any made in the future. Moreover, Ext.P3 order was passed on 7.8.2019. Two years elapsed now. Therefore the same",,

should be implemented forthwith. Heaven will not fall if Ext P3 order is implemented before Ext R14(a) application is disposed of finally by the lower,,

court or the petition to vacate the application filed by respondent Nos.14 and 15 are finally disposed of by the Court below.,,

Here is a case where the civil court passed an order on 7.8.2019 as evident by Ext P3. That is confirmed by the appellate court. As evident by Ext,,

P5, the civil court directed the District Administration and the District Police Chief to see that Ext P3 order is implemented in its letter and spirit. Ext",,

P5 police protection order was passed by the Prl.Munsiff, Kottayam on 6.11.2019. The District Administration and the Police department are not able",,

to obey the same. Their case is that there is law and order problem. If we accept the stand of the District Administration and the police department,",,

that, because of law and order problems an order passed by the court cannot be implemented, then there is no rule of law in this country. As I said",,

earlier, the parties can approach the court concerned and get it varied, or modified, or cancelled. Once an order is passed by a court of law, that is",,

binding to all concerned, and the District Administration and the police department are duty bound to implement the same. If they are not able to",,

implement an order passed by the court, that will be a failure of justice. That will leads to anarchy.",,

As evident by order dated 13.8.2020 in WP(C) No.35613 of 2019 and the order dated 24.8.2020 in the same writ petition, it is clear that the church",,

and its premises have been taken over by the District Collector through Revenue Divisional Officer. Now the District Administration and the police,,

chief seeking time before this court to implement the order saying that there is law and order problem. I cannot accept this submission of the,,

respondents.,,

Additional Advocate General Sri. Ashok M.Cherian appeared in this case for respondents No.1 to 6. Additional Advocate General also conceded,,

that the State is bound to implement the orders passed by the Court and they will do the needful immediately. According to me, this cannot go on like",,

this. Ext P3 order should be implemented in its letter and spirit forthwith. The other contentions of the contesting respondents in this writ petitions are,,

left open. That is to be agitated before the appropriate court. In a similar situation, when there was an interim order passed by the civil court in another",,

church case and when there was an obstruction, the civil court passed a police protection order. That was not implemented, and then a writ petition",,

,,

the justice delivery system and the same should be dealt with the iron hands of the law. If any such criminal activities are there either from the,,

contesting respondents or from any others, they should be booked with appropriate sections in the Indian Penal Code. If there is any instigators or",,

conspirators, they should also be booked in criminal case ignoring their status. I also make it clear that if anybody is arrested in connection with the",,

above case and produced before a court of law, a copy of this judgment should be produced before the bail court, if any bail application is filed by",,

them. The bail court will consider the spirit of this judgment and the facts of the case and thereafter will consider the bail application in accordance,,

with the law. I also make it clear that if any such criminal case in connection with the implementation of Ext P3 is registered, the District Police Chief,",,

Kottayam should constitute a special team to investigate the case and the final report should be filed before the Court concerned within the period,,

mentioned in Section 167(2)(i) &(ii) Cr. P.C, depending upon the offences alleged unless there are unavoidable circumstances for completing the",,

investigation within that period. If a final report is filed by the special team after investigation, the Court concerned will see that the preliminary inquiry",,

and trial if any is completed as expeditiously as possible. If there is any further delay or failure in implementing Ext P3 order of the civil court, the",,

District Police Chief, Kottayam and the State Police Chief will be directly responsible. The implementation of Ext P3 by the District Police Chief",,

should be supervised by the State Police Chief directly.,,

Therefore, these writ petitions are disposed of in the following matter.",,

The District Collector, Kottayam and the District Police Chief, Kottayam will open the closed church, which was locked as per the order dated 13.8.2020 of this",,

Court in WP(c) No.35613 of 2019.,,

The order dated 7.8.2019 in I.A.No.3476 of 2017 in O.S.No.654 of 2017 of the Prl.Munsiff, Kottayam as directed in Ext P5 should be implemented forthwith at any rate",,

within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.,,

The State Police Chief will supervise all actions necessary for implementing Ext P3 order of the civil court.,,

The respondents 1 to 6 are free to invoke the powers vested on them under Chapters VIII and X of the Code of Criminal Procedure to maintain public order,,

tranquility in 7th respondent Marthasmooni Church, Thiruvarppu, Kottayam while implementing Ext P3 order.",,

In order to ensure the prevention of any untoward incident in,,

7th respondent St.Marthasmooni Church, Kottayam, respondent Nos. 1 to 6 should afford adequate and effective police protection to the petitioner to conduct",,

religious services in the 7th respondent church and to the parishioners of the 7th respondent church in participating such religious services without any hindrance or,,

obstruction from respondent Nos. 8 to 15 and their men, agents or followers.",,

If anybody obstruct or create any problem for the smooth implementation of Ext P3 order, the police authority concerned should register criminal cases against the",,

culprits forthwith. The instigators and conspirators if any also should be booked in criminal cases. If any obstructions occurred while implementing the court order, it",,

should be taken in video and should be produced in the court concerned in accordance with the law.,,

The State Police Chief and the District Police Chief, Kottayam will constitute a special team to investigate those cases, if any, registered in connection with the",,

implementation of Ext P3 order passed by the civil court.,,

If any criminal case is registered as directed above, the special team headed by the investigating officer will investigate the case forthwith in accordance to the",,

Criminal Procedure Code and Police Act and that also within the time mentioned in Section 167(2)(i) &(ii) of the Criminal Procedure Code depending upon the,,

offences alleged, unless there are sufficient reasons for not completing the investigation within that period.",,

If any obstruction is caused while implementing Ext P3 order and those obstructors are arrested and cases are registered, the investigating officer concerned will",,

produce a copy of this judgment along with other documents before the court, if they are produced before a court of law, so that, while considering the bail",,

application of those persons, the bail court concerned can consider the spirit of this judgment also. Of course the bail court can consider the bail application only in",,

accordance to law and this court has no jurisdiction to dictate a bail court about the manner in which a bail application is to be considered.,,

The State Police Chief and the District Police Chief, Kottayam will file a report of compliance of this judgment before the Registrar General of this Court within six",,

weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.,,

The implementation of Ext P3 order will be subject to the result of the suit and subject to any modification of Ext P3 by any competent court. But respondent Nos.1,,

to 6 need not wait till the disposal of any clarification/modification petition pending before the lower court.,,

The contesting respondents are free to agitate their contentions before the lower court concerned and the lower court will consider the same in accordance with,,

law untrammelled by any observations in this judgment. I once again make it clear that this judgment is only to implement Ext P3 order, till it is varied/modified.",,