IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 21ST NOVEMBER 2008 / 30TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 3720 of 2006(P) ------------------------- OS.42/2003 of I ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------------- 1. ST.JOHN'S ORTHODIX SYRIAN CHURCH, KANNIYATTUNIRAPPU, KUZHIYARA KARA, THIRUVANIYOOR VILLAGE, REP. BY ITS VICAR. 2. FR.JOHN MOOLAMATTOM, AGED 37, S/O.FR.KURIAKOSE, VICAR, ST,JOHN'S ORTHODOX CHURCH, KANNIUATTUNIRAPPU. BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR SRI.P.K.SOYUZ SRI.MANU ROY RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. K.P.SREEKUMAR, RECIVER, DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM. 2. P.V.JOHNY, AGED 43, S/O.VARGHESE OOMELIL HOUSE, KOKKAPPILLY KARA, THIRUVANIYOOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. 3. N.V.GEORGE, AGED 47, S/O.VARGHESE, NEDEVELAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, KOKKAPPILLY KARA, THIRUVANIYOOR VILLAGE. 4. J.GEORGE, AGED 71, S/O.FR.JACOB, MUREEKKAL HOUSE, THIRUVANIYOOR VILLAGE. 5. M.V.GEORGE, AGED 71 YEARS, S/O.FR.JACOB MUREEKAL HOUSE, THIRUVANIYOOR VILLAGE. 6. P.M.JOY, AGED 44, S/O.MANI, PADINJAREKUDILIL HOUSE, KOKKAPPILLY KARA, THIRUVANIYOOR VILLAGE. 7. K.P.VARTHESE, AGED 59, S/O.PATHROSE, KAT TARTHUMALIL HOUSE, KOKKAPPALLI KARA, THIRUVANIYOOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. 8. M.Y.SAJU, S/O.YOHANNAN, ADVOCATE, MALIECKAL HOUSE, KOKKAPPALLY KARA, THIRUVANIYOOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, MANAGER, ST.JOHN'S HIGH SCHOOL, KANNIYATTUNIRAPPU. 9. REJI.N.K. NADUMOLAYIL HOUSE, KUZHIYARA KARA, THIRUVANIYOOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, SECRETARY, ST.JOHNS HOSPITAL, KANNIYATTUNIRAPPU. 10. JOY, S/O.KOCHUKUNHU, CHELACHJUVATTIL, THIRYVANIYOOR KARA, DO. VILLAGE. 11. E.V.JAMES, S/O.VARGHESE, EDAPPALLIMATTATHIL, THIRUVANIYOORKARA, DO. VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. 12. JACOB, S/O.KLUNJAPPAN KEELATH, THIRUVANIYOOR KARA, DO. VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. 13. BENNY PAUL, S/O.PAILY PATTULLIL, THIRUVANIYOOR KARA, DO. VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. 14. P.V,KURIACHAN, S/O.VARKEY, PUTHEN VEETTIL, THIRUVANIYOOR KARA, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. 15. K.T.PAULOSE, S/O.THOMMAN,KOLLAMKULATHIL, KIDNGAYAM KARA, KANAYANNOOR VILLAGE, DO. TALUK. 16. C.A.THANKCHAN, S/O.BARHAAM, CHIRAPPATTU, KIDANGAYAM KARA, KANAYANNUR VILLAGE, DO. TALUK. 17. BABU,S/O.VAREGHESE, CHRAPPATTU, KINDANGAYAM KARA, KANAYANNUR VILLAGE DO TALUK. 18. V.M.PAULOSE, S/O.MATHEW, VAZHAKKALAYIL KANAUANNUR TALUK AND VILLAGE. 19. ELIAS, S/O.PAPPY, PARAKKULANGARA, KIDANGANYAM, KANAYANNUR TALUK, DO. TALUK. 20. GEEVARGHESE, S/O.YACOB, KOKKATTU, KUZHIYARA KARA, THIRUVANIYOOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. 21. P.K.ELIAS, S/O.KORAH, PERUMBATTU, KUZHIYARA KARA, THIRUVANIYOOR VILLAGE. 22. N.U.JOSEPH, S/O.ULAHANNAN. NATTUTHOTTIYIL , KUZHIYARA KARA, THIRUVANIYOOR VILLAGE. 23. T.P.WILSON, S/O.PAILY, THACHETH,KOKKAPPI LLY KARA,. THIRUVANIYOOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. 24. PAUL VARGHESE, S.O,.VARGHESE, VATTAPPAL;LILG, KOKKSPPILLLY KARA, THIRUVANIYOOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. ADV. SRI.P.J.PHILIP FOR R5,R14 SRI.K.SURENDRA MOHAN FOR R2 TO 4 SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN FOR R1 SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) FOR R20 SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM FOR R20 SRI.SAJU WAHAB FOR R13, 14 & 16 SRI.S.R.DAYANANDA PRABHU FOR R11 SRI.K.S.RAJESH FOR R11 SRI.S.R.DAYANANDA PRABHU FOR R,6,8,10,12,18, SRI.SHAHUL HAMEED MOOPAN FOR R20 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 6.11.2008, THE COURT ON 21.11.2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C) NO. 3720 of 2006 ---------------------------------------- APPENDIX --------------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: ---------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C) NO.3497 OF 2005 DATED 13.10.2005. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 8.12.2005. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE 1934 CONSTITUTION OF MALANKARA ORTHODOX SYRIAN CHURCH. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE KALPANA. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMA NO.3/201 DATED 16.2.2001. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF I.A. NO.4057 OF 2005. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COY OF REPORT NO.2 DATED 4.1.2006 FILED BY THE RECEIVER. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED TO EXHIBIT P6. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED TO EXHIBIT P7. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF DECREE IN A.S. NO.121 AND 123 OF 1999 DATED 24.5.2001. EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 25.1.2006 IN REPORT NO.2 IN O.S. NO.42 OF 2003 OF THE DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT R14(A) TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN THE SUIT IN O.S. NO.42 OF 2003 OF THE FIRST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT ERNAKULAM. EXHIBIT R14(B) TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO.34 OF 2000 OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXHIBIT R14(C) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.4.2003 IN IA NO.810 OF 2003. EXHIBIT R14(D) TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS. EXHIBIT R14(E) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CMA 42 OF 1985 DATED 29.2.1988. EXHIBIT R14(F) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ADVOCATE RECEIVER. EXHIBIT R14(G) TRUE COPY OF REPORT NO.1 FILED BY FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 13.12.2005. EXHIBIT R14(H) TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT IN REPLY BY 1ST PETITIONER DATED 19.12.2005. EXHIBIT R14(I) TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 16.12.2005. EXHIBIT R14(J) TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 31.12.2005. EXHIBIT R14(K) TRUE COPY OF ADDITIONAL WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 31.12.2005. EXHIBIT R14(L) TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 6.8.2008 IN I.A. NO.890 OF 2008 IN W.P.(C) NO.3497 OF 2005. EXHIBIT R20(A) PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF PRARTHANAKARMAM, INDEX CHAPTER 3, PAGE 341 & 342 THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P(C) No. 3720 of 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 21st day of November, 008 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- In P.M.A. Metropolitan v. Moran Mar Marthoma (AIR 1995 SC 2001) judgment of the Honourable the Supreme Court begins quoting a story from the New Testament concerning an youngster who asked The Lord how he could achieve eternal life, The Lord telling him the way and the youngster going away sorrowful. The judgment ends with a big hope given in the following words (in paragraph 146): “We hope that the unity and integrity of the Malankara Church will be maintained and continued by the above arrangement which is wholly consistent with and indeed in furtherance of the objectives underlying the Mulanthuruthy Synod resolutions. Elections to the Malankara Association shall have to be held periodically so as to keep its representative character alive and effective”. At various stages, learned Single Judges and Division Benches W.P(C) No.3720 of 2006 -: 2 :- of this Court have held that the only permanent solution for the disputes between the two factions in the Malankara Church is to have election conducted in the parishes in a democratic way, last of it being Exhibit P1, judgment dated 13.10.2005 in W.P(C) No.3497 of 2005. Though learned Single Judge was considering the correctness of an interlocutory order on I.A. No.817 of 2004 in O.S. No.42 of 2003 of the court of First Additional District Judge, Ernakulam (for short, the “Special Court”), learned Single Judge as agreed by both sides that election has to be conducted, issued the following directions. “Taking the cue from the earlier judgment dated 29.2.1988 by this Court in C.M.A. No.42 of 1985 I direct that the court below shall appoint a Receiver (who shall be a person preferably a non-Christian of proven integrity) for convening general body meeting of the church for the purpose of conducting election to the Managing Committee of the church in accordance with the 1934 Constitution. The petitioners and followers of their group will be entitled to participate in the election only if they swear allegiance to the 1934 Constitution”. W.P(C) No.3720 of 2006 -: 3 :- Accordingly the Special Court appointed Advocate Shri K.P.Sreekumar as Receiver to conduct election to the Managing Committee of the first petitioner, St.John's Orthodox Syrian Church, Kanniyatunirappu. Receiver submitted Exhibit P7, Report No.2 dated 4.1.2006 seeking directions from the Special Court in the matter of preparation of final list of eligible voters of the parishioners of the first petitioner. The Special Court after hearing both sides issued Exhibit P11, order dated 25.1.2006 on that report. Petitioners are aggrieved by that order and seek to quash the said order, invoking the power of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. 2. Though several clarifications are asked for in Exhibit P7, Report and directions in those matters are given in Exhibit P11, order dated 25.1.2006, the challenge in this proceeding is confined to two issues. In paragraph 3 of the Report, Receiver had sought clarification whether: “In order to make a parishioner eligible to vote is it necessary that the Receiver is to insist that he should make the Confession before the vicar of the church or is it sufficient W.P(C) No.3720 of 2006 -: 4 :- that the member of the church can make the Confession before the vicar of his choice and produce necessary proof from the said vicar that Confession has been made by the member before the said vicar”. The Receiver also pointed out his difficulty in acting upon the Registers regarding Confession. Petitioners filed objection to the Report and claimed that allowing the parishioners to confess before a vicar of their choice amounted to destroying the 1934 Constitution and that the Confession Register maintained by the vicar of the first petitioner alone has to be based for preparing the final list of eligible voters. 3. The Special Court as per Exhibit P11, order directed in paragraph 6 thus: “if the dissidents are willing to swear allegiance to 1934 Constitution they may also be included in the voters list. But for getting the right, to be included in the voters list, they may confess before the vicar/priest of their choice as decided by the Honourable High Court in the similar matter. They shall also file an affidavit before the Receiver stating that W.P(C) No.3720 of 2006 -: 5 :- they have confessed before a vicar/priest as provided in the 1934 Constitution”. In paragraph 8 it was directed thus: “The names of those persons included in the Edavaka Register produced by the trustees also may be included in the final voters' list if they are swearing allegiance to the 1934 Constitution irrespective of the fact that whether they accepted 2002 Constitution or whether their names included in the Edavaka Register produced by the trustees is not signed by the vicar”. 4. Learned counsel for petitioners contended that the said directions run counter to the 1934 Constitution accepted and approved by the Honourable the Supreme Court in P.M.A. Metropolitan's case. According to the learned counsel even Exhibit P1, judgment would show that the faction represented by the contesting respondents were the trouble mongers and that the 1934 Constitution does not prove for the Confession being made to anybody other than the vicar of the parish concerned. It is also the W.P(C) No.3720 of 2006 -: 6 :- contention of the counsel that the Edavaka Register is to be maintained by the vicar of the parish concerned as per the provisions of the 1934 Constitution, required to be signed by him and the Diocesan Metropolitan whenever the latter visited the parish concerned. Learned counsel therefore prayed that the above quoted directions in Exhibit P11 order be set aside. 5. Counsel for respondents 2 to 4 who supported the petitioners however is of the view that it is not absolutely necessary that Confession should be to the vicar of the parish concerned. According to the learned counsel, Confession could be to any vicar or priest provided the latter owe allegiance to the 1934 Constitution. Counsel for the contesting respondents contended that Confession is not a necessary requirement to make a male member of the parish eligible to vote at the election. lt is further contended that at any rate, 1934 Constitution does not prescribe that confession should be to the vicar of the parish concerned. Nor is it necessary to be eligible to vote that the name of the male member of the parish should find a place in the Parish Register maintained by the vicar. Insistance of such conditions would only upset the directions given in P.M.A. Metropolitan's case and the various decisions of this Court leading W.P(C) No.3720 of 2006 -: 7 :- upto Exhibit P11, order that election has to be conducted in a democratic way ensuring participation of all. According to the learned counsel, if the conditions required to be imposed by the petitioners are accepted, that would only result in keeping away majority of the eligible voters from the election. It is also contended that the contesting respondents did not accept the status of the second petitioner as qualified to be a priest and much less as vicar of the first petitioner. That matter is under challenge and yet to be decided in O.S. No.35 of 2000 of the Sub Court, Ernakulam. 6. To understand the rival contentions, it is necessary to go into the 1934 Constitution and various decisions of this Court concerning disputes between the very same parties or, similar disputes between the very same factions. Exhibit P3 is the 1934 Constitution. Chapter II of the 1934 Constitution deals with the parish church. Clauses 7, 8 and 43 reads thus: “7. All men who confess and receive Holy Qurbana at least once a year, and who have completed the age of twenty one years, may be members of the Parish Assembly. W.P(C) No.3720 of 2006 -: 8 :- 8. There shall be a Parish Assembly Register containing the names and particulars of the members of the Parish Assembly, and a Holy confession Register containing the names and particulars of those who have confessed. 43. In addition to the Baptism Register, the Marriage Register, the Burial Register, the Parish Assembly Register and the Confession Register, there shall be a Parish Register containing the names and other particulars of all men and women o the Parish entered regularly under the responsibility of the Vicar and kept in his custody. When the Diocesan Metropolitan comes to the Church on his Parish visit these shall be got signed by him. The vicar shall keep also the files of Kalpanas (orders) and other documents received from the higher authorities of the Church”. 7. That, a male member of the parish to become eligible to vote at the election must owe allegiance to the 1934 Constitution cannot any more be in dispute in view of the decision in P.M.A. Metropolitan's case and Exhibit P1. Therefore that question is not required to be gone into in this proceeding. W.P(C) No.3720 of 2006 -: 9 :- 8. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for contesting respondents that it is not absolutely necessary that one must undergo Confession to be eligible to vote, that contention cannot prima facie stand in view of clause 7 of Exhibit P3 extracted above. As believed in the Christian Church, Confession is a sacrament. Contesting respondents have no case that the Hudaya Canon accepted in P.M.A. Metropolitan's case does not provide that at least once in a year all men and women belonging to the church should undergo Confession. 9. Then the next question is whether such Confession should be to vicar of the first petitioner or it could be to any vicar or priest of the choice of the parishioner concerned. I could not find any clause in Exhibit P3 which stated that Confession should be to the vicar of the parish concerned. Instead, it is only stated in clause 7 of Exhibit P3 that all men who confess and receive Holy Qurbana at least once a year and who have completed the age of twenty one years, may be members of the parish assembly. Clause 43 of Exhibit P3 also only stated that the vicar should maintain a Confession Register containing the names of those who received Confession at least once a year. 10. Contesting respondents have produced as document No.1 W.P(C) No.3720 of 2006 -: 10 :- a prayer book said to be published by Malankara Orthodox Church (faction of the petitioners). Page 341 of that prayer book contains the procedure for Confession. It is to the effect that Confession could be to a priest or high priest of the choice of the person confessing. Contesting respondents also produced for my perusal the Code of Canon Law (English Translation) prepared by the Canton Law Society of Great Britain and Ireland. Clause 991 deals with Confession and states thus: “All Christians are free to confess before approved confessors of their choice, even to one of another rite” (underline supplied). According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, Code of Canon Law relied on by the contesting respondents is applicable only to the catholic church. Assuming so, petitioners do not have a case that the Hudaya Canon which has been approved in P.M.A. Metropolitan's case did contain a different provision regarding Confession. Clause 43 of Exhibit P3 (1934 Constitution) which requires maintenance of Confession Register by the vicar of the parish to be signed by himself and the Diocesan Metropolitan at the time of his visit to the parish W.P(C) No.3720 of 2006 -: 11 :- cannot mean, in any view, that confession has to be made to the vicar of the parish concerned. Confession Register, reading clause 8 of Exhibit P3 also, can only be taken as a document to evidence that the parishioner has confessed at least once in a year. 11. This issue had come up for consideration before this Court on different occasions. In Exhibit P10, judgment dated 24.5.2001 in A.S. Nos.121 and 123 of 1999 a learned Single Judge of this Court directed among other things thus: “they must have the liberty to clarify themselves as members of the church with eligibility to vote by complying with the requirements for making confession before a vicar of their choice” (emphasis supplied). The stand of the contesting respondents that Confession need not necessarily be to the vicar of the parish concerned and instead, could be to any vicar/priest of the choice of the parishioners has found judicial recognition as well. 12. In Varughese Paily v. Chacko Mathai (AIR 1998 Ker. 237) and in Exhibit P1, judgment it is stated that the election has W.P(C) No.3720 of 2006 -: 12 :- to be conducted in a democratic way. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for petitioners that there is no question of any dispute in the church subsequent to the decision in P.M.A. Metropolitan's case, it is a fact that unity and integrity in the Malankara Church which was a hope expressed by the Honourable the Supreme Court while deciding P.M.A. Metropolitan's case is eluding that church. That, there are two factions exiting in the Malankara Church is a reality and cannot be ignored. Contention of the petitioners that only those male members of the parish who confessed to the vicar of the first petitioner alone are eligible to vote at the election cannot be accepted since that contention does not have the backing of either the 1934 Constitution (Exhibit P3) or any judicial pronouncement. Insisting on such a condition will only lead to keeping away a section of the male members of the parish from the election. In A.F.A. No.27 of 1997, a Division Bench of this Court (see judgment dated 4.4.2000) highlighted the need to conduct fair and free election ensuring the participation of both the factions. Therefore, the contention that Confession can only be made to the vicar of the first petitioner cannot be accepted. 13. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for W.P(C) No.3720 of 2006 -: 13 :- contesting respondents that the eligibility of the second petitioner to be a priest and his appointment as vicar of the first petitioner are not accepted as that matter is under challenge in O.S. No.35 of 1990 of the Sub Court, Moovattupuzha, I do not consider it necessary to go into that issue in this proceeding. 14. The Special Court directed that the male member of the parish would produce an affidavit before the Receiver to the effect that they swear allegiance to the 1934 Constitution and that they have made the Confession to the vicar/priest of their choice as provided in the 1934 Constitution. In A.F.A. No.27 of 1997 (see paragraph 29 of the judgment dated 4.4.2000) while holding that there is no merit in the objection raised by one of the observers in his affidavit dated 17.2.1999 the Division Bench observed that since there is dispute as to whom confession is to be made, “there is no question of production of confession certificate or register maintained by the church”. Hence any further direction in the matter of swearing allegiance to the 1934 Constitution or proof of Confession is not required. 15. So far as the contention of the petitioners that names of the persons eligible to vote must be drawn exclusively from the Edavaka Register (Parish Register) referred to in Clause 43 of Exhibit W.P(C) No.3720 of 2006 -: 14 :- P3 (1934 Constitution) is concerned, it is to be remembered that the purpose of maintaining the registers referred to in clause 43 is only to evidence the fact that the members of the parish received sacraments at least once in a year. It is not the registers that made a person a member of the parish. It is a fact that in this case both sides have registers containing names of the persons of the parish supporting them. Learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that in the register produced in this case, the second petitioner has signed as a vicar upto a particular date and thereafter those register contains the signature of somebody else who supported the faction of the contesting respondents. In such a situation it is not appropriate, nor will it help conduct of election in a democratic manner ensuring participation of all the male members of the parish who are otherwise eligible to vote if it is insisted that only those male members whose names find place in the Parish Register maintained by the petitioners or the contesting respondents alone should be permitted to vote. This issue was considered in Varughese Paily's case. It was observed in paragraph 14, thus: “.........That means every church shall W.P(C) No.3720 of 2006 -: 15 :- maintain compulsorily Parish Assembly Register and Confession Register. The rival group in this case claim that they have maintained their own register on the basis of the confession made before their priests. The insistance on the properly maintained registers may sometimes take away the right of many members to participate in the election. That contingency at any rate should be avoided in the interest of maintaining the sense of democratic content in the church. Therefore the voters' list prepared by the joint receivers pursuant to the orders of this Court must prevail”. Again in paragraph 15 it is stated thus: “.....In the aforesaid premise we feel it would be unjust to insist the preparation of the voters' list strictly in accordance with the Parish Assembly Register and Holy Confession Register contemplated under Section 8 of the 1934 Constitution. As a matter of fact the dispute as between the rival factions was subsisting as to before whom the confession should be made. Therefore the requirement of W.P(C) No.3720 of 2006 -: 16 :- maintaining the confession register can be insisted only prospectively, that is to say after swearing allegiance to '1934 Constitution' as propounded by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan v. Moran Mar Marthoma Mathews (AIR 1997 SC 1035). In the circumstances of this case, we are of the view that every member who propose to participate in the election shall be allowed to swear allegiance to the 1934 Constitution in the form of an affidavit”. The contention that the voters' list has to be prepared based on the Registers maintained by the vicar was dispelled by the Division Bench in A.F.A. No.27 of 1997. 16. In the light of what I have stated above, interference with Exhibit P11, order is not required. The Writ Petition therefore, is dismissed. Though the Supreme Court while pronouncing judgment in P.M.A. Metropolitan v. Moran Mar Marthoma (AIR 1995 SC 2001) expressed the hope that unity and integrity will be W.P(C) No.3720 of 2006 -: 17 :- achieved in the Malankara Church, it eludes that church though 13 years have passed by. Though in Exhibit P1, judgment dated 13.10.2005 in W.P(C) No.3497 of 2005 the learned Single Judge directed conduct of election realising that election to the Managing Committee is the only solution to the problem, even after three years even the final voters' list could not be agreed upon by the warring factions or prepared by the Receiver for one reason or other. The Lord said: “You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth'. But now I tell