IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2008 / 11TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 18527 of 2008(E) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------ 1. CHURCH COMMITTEE, LUTHERGIRI LUTHERAN CHURCH, ARYANAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, N.SAJAN. 2. REV.N.SURAJ, PASTOR, LUTHERGIRI LUTHERAN CHURCH, ARYANAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE HOME SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RURAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. C.I. OF POLICE, ARYANAD POLICE STATION, ARYANAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ARYANAD POLICE STATION, ARYANAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. N.GIBSON, S/O.L.NALLATHAMPI, THOTTINKARAVEEDU, LUTHERGIRI, ARAYANAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. D.VIJAYAN, S/O.DAVID, THOTTINKARAVEEDU, LUTHERGIRI, ARYANAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 7. T.VIJAYANKUTTY, S/O.THAMPI, KARUVILA VEEDU, KANNANKARAMOOZHI, WPC 18527/2008 ARYANAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 8. T.DILEEP, S./O.THANKAPPAN, THITTINKARAVEEDU ,LUTHERGIRI, ARYANAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADDL. RESPONDENT: 9. Y.SUKUMARAN, S/O.YOSI, RESIDING AT THOTTINKARA VEEDU, LUTHERGIRI, ARYANAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. (IMPLEADED AS ADDL.9TH RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER IN IA 8163/08 DT.2.7.08) BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN FOR R5-9 SRI.SAIJO HASSAN FOR R5-9 SRI.A.S.SABU FOR R5-9 SRI.N.NARAYANAN NAIR FOR R5-9 SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 18527/08 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXTS. EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25.2.2008OF THE TRIVANDRUM SYNOD. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.26/SEC/TS/08 DATED 16.4.2008. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.16.PRE/08 DATED 30.5.08. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 5.6.08 ISSUED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE TRIVANDRUM SYNOD TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 5.6.08 ISSUED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE TRIVANDRUM SYNOD TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 7.6.08. EXT.P7 - TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE GENERAL SABHA YOGAM HELD ON 13.4.03. EXT.P8 - TRUE COPY OF PAGE NOS.105 TO 109 OF MINUTES BOOK OF THE CHURCH. EXT.P9 - TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF MINUTESOF EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE DATED 16.4.08. RESPONDENTS'S EXTS. EXT.R5(a) – TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF THE BYE-LAW OF INDIA EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH. EXT.R5(b) – TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF TRANSFER DATED 16.4.2008. EXT.R5(c) – TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATD 15.5.2008. EXT.R5(d) – TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 1.6.2008. EXT.R5(e) – TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 7.6.2008. EXT.R5(f) – TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE INDIA EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH DATED 27.4.2008. /TRUE COPY/ K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 18527 OF 2008-E ----------------------------------------- Dated 2nd July, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The 1st petitioner is the Church Committee of Luthergiri Lutheran Church and the 2nd petitioner is the newly appointed Pastor of that Church. They submit, the 2nd petitioner has been appointed as the Pastor of Luthergiri Lutheran Church by the President of the Synod by Ext.P3 order. When he went there to assume charge and function as such, the respondents 5 to 8, who are the parishners of that Church, are causing obstruction. So, the 2nd petitioner filed Ext.P6 representation before the C.I of Police, Aryanad, the 3rd respondent herein, praying that the persons obstructing may be warned and he may be given necessary protection to conduct the prayers in the Church. Since the police did not interfere and help the petitioners, this Writ Petition is filed, seeking the following relief: “To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding respondents 3 & 4 to give adequate and effective police protection to the 2nd petitioner to WPC 18527/08 2 perform his duties as Pastor of Luthergiri Lutheran Church, Aryanad from the threat and illegal activities of respondents 5 to 8 and their henchmen in the interest of justice.” 2. The contesting respondents, who are the parishners, have filed a counter affidavit, stating that the transfer of a Pastor can be done only by the Executive Committee of the Synod and not by the President. It is also submitted that the Church in question is a self supporting Church and therefore, the Pastor can be appointed only with the concurrence of the parishners of that Church. 3. The petitioners have filed a reply affidavit, stating that the Executive Committee of the Synod has authorised the President to issue transfer orders, as evident from Ext.P9 minutes. It is also submitted that as evident from Ext.P8 decision, the Church Committee has approved the appointment of the 2nd petitioner as Pastor. 4. Now, it is well-settled in law that for assuming charge of an office and discharging the functions attached to that office, the incumbent cannot seek police protection, but has to move the civil court. See the decision of the Apex Court in P.R.Muralidharan v. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar [(2006)4 SCC 501]. In this case, the 2nd petitioner is being obstructed by some parishners of the Church, raising certain grounds. WPC 18527/08 3 Whether those grounds are valid or not, is a matter, which this Court cannot adjudicate upon under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. While exercising the power of judicial review, this Court cannot decide the disputes between private parties. Further, no statutory provision has been brought to our notice, which authorises the police to go into the rival contentions of the parties and take a decision in favour of one party and render necessary protection to that party. The dispute involved in this case has to be decided by the civil court. The police can interfere in this dispute, only if directed by the civil court. In view of the above position, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions of both sides and the right of the petitioners to approach other forums for appropriate reliefs. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. Nm/