IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER FRIDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2006 / 13TH SRAVANA 1928 WP(C).No. 20549 of 2006(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SIMPSON MOHANDAS KALARIKKAL, MEMBER, MALABAR DISTRICT CHURCH COUNCIL & C.S.I.CATHEDRAL, PASTORATE COMMITTEE, 'BETHEL', PEVUMKNDY PARAMBA, CHEVAYOOR, CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE RT.REV.DR.GEORGER ISSAC, BISHOP OF C.S.I., NORTH KERALA DIOCESE, P.B.NO.104, SHORNUR. 4. REV.VINOD ALLEN, CORPORATE MANAGER, C.S.I.DIOCESAN SCHOOLS IN MALABAR AND WAYANAD AREA, CALICUT. BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.D.P.RENU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/08/2006, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. Basheer, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C) No. 20549 of 2006-U - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of August, 2006. J U D G M E N T Petitioner claims that he is an elected member of the C.S.I. Church (Cathedral) representing the Congregation of about 14,000 members in the Malabar District Church Council. He takes strong exception to the election of respondent No.4, Rev.Vinod Allen as Corporate Manager of C.S.I. Diocesan Schools in Malabar and Wayanad Area and also to the approval of the said appointment. It is contended by the petitioner that in terms of the decree passed in O.S.No. 355/1955 by the Munsiff's Court, Kozhikode, the Executive Committee of the Church Council shall act as the Managing Committee for the properties of the Church including the educational institutions. 2. It is admitted by the petitioner that the present Executive Committee was elected in the elections held in April 2002. The contention of the petitioner is that the Executive Committee took the decision to appoint a new Manager in December 2005, while being fully aware that the next general election was scheduled to be held on April 23, 2006. According to the petitioner, the said decision taken by the Executive Committee is illegal and unauthorised. Petitioner has also raised a contention that the members of the Committee are not entitled to hold the office, since they are employed in Government service or Government Organizations. 3. It is pertinent to note that the appointment of the new Manager had been approved by the Director of Public Instruction, WP. 20549/06 2 who is the competent authority under the Kerala Education Act and Rules. It is revealed from Ext.P4 order passed by the Director that the appointment was made by the Bishop of Diocese in conformity with the constitution of the corporate management. It was further noticed by the Director that the appointment was recommended by the D.E.O concerned. It was in the above circumstances that the Director had passed the order of approval in terms of Rule 4(2) of Chapter III K.E.R. 4. I have carefully perused the materials placed on record and heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. In my view the contentions raised by the petitioner are totally misconceived and untenable. Petitioner is admittedly one of the 14,000 members of the Church Council. Though petitioner has vaguely contended that several like minded members are against the appointment of respondent No.4, no one else has joined him in this writ petition. If members like the petitioner have any objection or grievance in the manner respondent No.4 has been elected as the Manager, they ought to have raised their objection before the Council or before other appropriate body. In my view, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution need not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to interfere with the decision taken by a duly constituted Committee. 6. At this juncture learned counsel submits that respondent No.1, Director of Public Instruction may be directed to consider Ext.P3 representation. As noticed earlier, the Director had already passed Ext.P4 order of approval which clearly reveals that he had applied his mind while passing the order. I do not find any reason to issue a direction to respondent No.1 to reconsider the matter. Therefore the WP. 20549/06 3 above prayer is also rejected. 7. This is in fact a fit case where exorbitant costs ought to be awarded, but since I have not admitted the writ petition and issued notice to the respondents, I refrain from doing so. Writ Petition is dismissed. A.K. Basheer Judge. an.