IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2011 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1932 W.A.No. 210 of 2011 -------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.37327/2010 Dated 15/12/2010 .................... APPELLANT / PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------ FR. PAULOSE CHITTAYATH, VICAR, ST. MARY'S JACOBITE SYRIAN CHURCH, VAZHATHOP, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ROY CHACKO RESPONDENTS / RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, CIVIL STATION, VAZHATHOPPU, IDUKKI - 688 673. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, IDUKKI - 685 702. 3. THE VICAR, ST. MARY'S ORTHODOX SYRIAN CHURCH, VAZHATHOPPU, IDUKKI-688 673. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.BINDU THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No.210 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 8th day of March 2011 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. St.Mary's Jacobite Syrian Church at Vazhathop in Idukki district had witnessed some unsavoury and unfortunate incidents in the year 2002 because of the factional feud between Patriarchs and Catholicos. Ultimately, the church had to be closed down by the authorities. Later, on October 31, 2002, the two factions agreed to maintain peace and law and order in the area at a conciliation meeting held at the chambers of the District Collector. 2. It was agreed between the two factions that the church be opened on every Sunday at 7 a.m. for conduct of religious ceremonies and closed immediately after finishing the ceremonies. It was further agreed that on special occasions like baptism, marriage, funeral rites etc., the church would be opened at the request of the parties concerned. The Village Officer, Idukki was designated as the custodian of the key and he was directed to file periodical reports to the Revenue Divisional Officer as regards compliance of the terms of agreement entered into between the parties. 3. It appears that the said arrangement continued till the third week W.A.No.210 OF 2011 :: 2 :: of July 2010 without any apparent hitch. But on 23rd and 25th of July 2010 some untoward incidents took place in the church when the members belonging to one faction made a forceful entry while the believers of the other faction were holding prayers. There occurred some untoward incidents; and necessarily the police had to intervene. The church was thereafter closed down. Though several rounds of conciliatory talks were held involving the representatives of the two factions in the presence of various officials in the police and revenue department, no headway could be made. 4. At that stage, the petitioner had submitted a representation before the District Collector requesting him to reopen the church inorder to facilitate the believers to conduct prayers as had been done from 2002 onwards. After submitting the said representation, a copy of which is available on record before us as Ext.P2, the petitioner approached this court and filed W.P.(C)No.27136/2010. The said writ petition was disposed of by this court with a direction to the District Collector to consider the said representation and take a decision thereon after hearing the parties. 5. In compliance with the above direction, the District Collector, Idukki heard all parties concerned and passed Ext.P7 order. In this order, the District Collector held that the time was not congenial or ripe to reopen the church since there was a perceptible threat to law and order situation, W.A.No.210 OF 2011 :: 3 :: as the supporters of the two factions were still at loggerheads and were not in a mood to create a peaceful atmosphere. 6. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before the learned Single Judge. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge has concurred with the view taken by the District Collector. The learned Single Judge concluded the judgment with the following observation: “In my view, if the worshipers prove themselves unworthy of any facility for worshiping in the church, the District Collector cannot be faulted for taking a preventive action.” 7. We cannot agree more, with the above view. Sri.Roy Chacko, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the order passed by the District Collector is bereft of any reasoning and is, on the face of it, totally illegal and arbitrary. He submits that the District Collector was not at all justified in taking a premeditated view, though the situation in the area was tensed and there was no possibility of the worshipers holding their prayers in the church without causing any law and order problem in the area. It can be seen from Ext.P7 order that several conciliatory meetings were held at the behest of the Deputy Superintendent of the Police, Tahsildar, Senior Superintendent attached to the Revenue Divisional Officer apart from the Village Officer, Police and Revenue officials. W.A.No.210 OF 2011 :: 4 :: Representatives of the two factions have participated in all these conciliatory talks. But the District Collector noticed that the parties could not suggest an amicable solution. 8. After considering the entire aspects of the matter, as reflected in Ext.P7 order, the District Collector took the view that it would not be proper to reopen Church for the time being, till an appropriate decision is taken by the competent civil court. In our view, the order passed by the District Collector is eminently justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The learned Single Judge has adverted to all the relevant aspects of the matter. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. Writ appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE jes