“THAT THEY MAY ALL BE ONE, JUST AS YOU, FATHER, ARE IN ME, AND I IN YOU, THAT THEY ALSO MAY BE IN US, SO THAT THE WORLD MAY BELIEVE THAT YOU HAVE SENT ME.” - JESUS [John 17:21]

2. WHILE PENNING THIS ORDER, WITH GREAT PAIN, I OBSERVE, “NOBLE OBJECT WITH WHICH THE EDUCATIONAL AND HEALTH CARE INSTITUTIONS OF THE DIOCESE OF THIRUNELVELI AND TINNEVELLY DIOCESAN TRUST ASSOCIATION WERE CREATED, IS BEING DEFEATED, BUT FOR THE PRESENT LITIGATIVE BATTLE.”

3. W.P(MD)No.21134 of 2017 has been filed seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent authorities 1 to 13 to take necessary action to enable and ensure the administrative committee appointed by the CSI Synod to exercise its power as affirmed by the Honourable Division Bench of this Court in the judgment in Thoothukudi – Nazareth Diocese & another v. The Church of South India and another reported in 2009 (4) LW 742, vide its proceedings dated 31.05.2017, over the administrations and management of the 14th respondent Diocese and its educational and health care institutions.

4. W.P(MD)No.17952 of 2017 has been filed seeking a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the Company Master Data insofar as the http://www.judis.nic.in 4/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch inclusion of the name of the 2nd respondent as Director with effect from 11.07.2017 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same and further direct the 2 nd respondent not to claim or act as the Secretary/Treasurer of the 3 rd respondent company.

5. W.P(MD)No.17517 of 2017 has been filed seeking a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for entire records connected with the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.2682/Aa2/2017 dated 15.07.2017 approving the 5th respondent as Correspondent in the school namely Mary Sargeant Higher Secondary School, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District and quash the same and direct the 2 nd respondent to recognize Dr.Jeyam Juliet as continuing in the post of correspondent of Mary Sargeant Higher Secondary School, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District based upon the resolution of SYNOD, the 3rd respondent dated 31.05.2017 and as per representation of the Manager of TDTA dated 05.06.2017.

6. W.P(MD)No.17518 of 2017 has been filed seeking a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for entire records connected with the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.2108/Aa4/2017 dated 19.07.2017 approving the 5th respondent as Correspondent in the school, namely, Samariah St. John's Higher Secondary School, Kulasekaranvilai, Tirunelveli District and quash the same and direct the 2nd respondent to recognize Mr.C.Jeyakar as continuing in the post of Correspondent of Samariah St. John's Higher Secondary School, Kulasekaranvilai, http://www.judis.nic.in 5/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch Tirunelveli District based upon the resolution of SYNOD, the 3 rd respondent dated 31.05.2017 and as per representation of the Manager of TDTA dated 05.06.2017.

7. W.P(MD)No.17519 of 2017 has been filed seeking a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for entire records connected with the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.1301/Aa5/2017 dated 15.07.2017 approving the 5th respondent as Correspondent in the school namely Sarah Tucker Higher Secondary School, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District and quash the same and direct the 2 nd respondent to recognize Mrs.Jeyaseeli Joy as continuing in the post of Correspondent of Sarah Tucker Higher Secondary School, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District based upon the resolution of SYNOD, the 3 rd respondent dated 30.05.2017 and as per order of the Manager of TDTA dated 05.06.2017.

8. W.P(MD)No.17520 of 2017 has been filed seeking a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for entire records connected with the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.2643/Aa2/2017 dated 15.07.2017 approving the 5th respondent as Correspondent in the school, namely, Schaffter Higher Secondary School, Tirunelveli and quash the same and direct the 2nd respondent to recognize Mr.Nathan R Moses as continuing in the post of correspondent of Schaffter Higher Secondary School, Tirunelveli based upon the resolution of SYNOD, the 3rd respondent dated 31.05.2017 and as per order of the Manager of TDTA dated 05.06.2017.

http://www.judis.nic.in 6/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch

9. W.P(MD)No.17521 of 2017 has been filed seeking a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for entire records connected with the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.1876/A2/2017 dated 15.07.2017 approving the 5th respondent as Correspondent in the school namely Baren Bruck Higher Secondary School, Bungalow Surandai – 627 859, Tirunelveli District and quash the same and direct the 2nd respondent to recognize Mr.Manuvel Selvanayagam as continuing in the post of Correspondent of Baren Bruck Higher Secondary School, Bungalow Surandai – 627 859, Tirunelveli District based upon the resolution of SYNOD, the 3 rd respondent dated 31.05.2017 and as per representation of the Manager of TDTA dated 05.06.2017.

10. W.P(MD)No.17522 of 2017 has been filed seeking a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for entire records connected with the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.1301/Aa5/2017 dated 15.07.2017 approving the 5th respondent as Correspondent in the school namely Cathedral Higher Secondary School, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District and quash the same and direct the 2 nd respondent to recognize Mr.Victor Selvaraj as continuing in the post of Correspondent of Cathedral Higher Secondary School, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District based upon the resolution of SYNOD, the 3rd respondent dated 31.05.2017 and as per representation of the Manager of TDTA dated 05.06.2017. http://www.judis.nic.in 7/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch

11. W.P(MD)No.17523 of 2017 has been filed seeking a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for entire records connected with the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.2603/Aa4/2017 dated 21.07.2017 approving the 5th respondent as Correspondent in the school namely Walker Higher Secondary School, Dohnavur, Tirunelveli District and quash the same and direct the 2 nd respondent to recognize Mr.P.P.Alwin Balan as continuing in the post of Correspondent of Walker Higher Secondary School, Dohnavur, Tirunelveli District based upon the resolution of SYNOD, the 3rd respondent dated 31.05.2017 and as per order of the Manager of TDTA dated 05.06.2017.

12. W.P(MD)No.17524 of 2017 has been filed seeking a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for entire records connected with the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.1920/Aa3/2017 dated 15.07.2017 approving the 5th respondent as Correspondent in the school namely West Tirunelveli Higher Secondary School, Nallur – 627 853, Tirunelveli District and quash the same and direct the 2nd respondent to recognize Mr.Jacob Arulmanickaraj as continuing in the post of Correspondent of West Tirunelveli Higher Secondary School, Nallur – 627 853, Tirunelveli District based upon the resolution of SYNOD, the 3 rd respondent dated 31.05.2017 and as per representation of the Manager of TDTA dated 05.06.2017.

http://www.judis.nic.in 8/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch

13. W.P(MD)No.13443 of 2017 has been filed seeking a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for entire records connected with the impugned order passed by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.1483/A4/2017 dated 15.07.2017 approving the 5th respondent as Correspondent in the school namely St. John's Higher Secondary School, Palayamkottai and quash the same and direct the 2nd respondent to recognize Dr.A.Arul Devadoss as continuing in the post of Correspondent of St. John's Higher Secondary School, Palayamkottai as per order of the 2nd respondent in Mu.Mu.No. 0068/A4/2015 dated 09.01.2017 and based upon the resolution of SYNOD, the 3rd respondent dated 31.05.2017 and as per representation of the petitioner dated 05.06.2017.

14. W.P(MD)No.22667 of 2017 has been filed seeking a writ of Mandamus to forbear the respondents 1 and 2 from approving or registering the third respondent as the Correspondent of Mary Sergeant Higher Secondary School, Palayamkottai on the basis of the order of interim stay dated 25.10.2017 in WMP (MD) No.14046 of 2017 in WP (MD) No.17517 of 2017.

15. W.P(MD)No.22668 of 2017 has been filed seeking a writ of Mandamus to forbear the respondents 1 and 2 from approving or registering the third respondent as the Correspondent of Sarah Tucker Higher Secondary School, Palayamkottai on the basis of the order of interim stay dated 25.10.2017 in WMP (MD) No.14050 of 2017 in WP (MD) No.17519 of 2017.

http://www.judis.nic.in 9/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch

16. W.P(MD)No.22669 of 2017 has been filed seeking a writ of Mandamus to forbear the respondents 1 and 2 from approving or registering the third respondent as the Correspondent of Baren Bruck Higher Secondary School, Bungalow Surandai on the basis of the order of interim stay dated 25.10.2017 in WMP (MD) No.14054 of 2017 in WP (MD) No.17521 of 2017.

17. W.P(MD)No.22670 of 2017 has been filed seeking a writ of Mandamus to forbear the respondents 1 and 2 from approving or registering the third respondent as the Correspondent of West Tirunelveli Higher Secondary School, Nallur on the basis of the order of interim stay dated 25.10.2017 in WMP (MD) No.14060 of 2017 in WP (MD) No.17524 of 2017.

18. W.P(MD)No.22813 of 2017 has been filed seeking a writ of Mandamus to forbear the respondents 1 and 2 from approving or registering the third respondent as the Correspondent of Smariah St. John's Higher Secondary School, Kulasekaranvilai on the basis of the order of interim stay dated 25.10.2017 in WMP (MD) No.14048 of 2017 in WP (MD) No.17518 of 2017.

19. W.P(MD)No.22814 of 2017 has been filed seeking a writ of Mandamus to forbear the respondents 1 and 2 from approving or registering the third respondent as the Correspondent of Schaffter Higher Secondary School, Tirunelveli on the basis of the order of interim stay dated 25.10.2017 in WMP (MD) No.14052 of 2017 in WP (MD) No.17520 of 2017.

http://www.judis.nic.in 10/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch

20. W.P(MD)No.22815 of 2017 has been filed seeking a writ of Mandamus to forbear the respondents 1 and 2 from approving or registering the third respondent as the Correspondent of Cathedral Higher Secondary School, Palayamkottai on the basis of the order of interim stay dated 25.10.2017 in WMP (MD) No.14056 of 2017 in WP (MD) No.17522 of 2017.

21. W.P(MD)No.22816 of 2017 has been filed seeking a writ of Mandamus to forbear the respondents 1 and 2 from approving or registering the third respondent as the Correspondent of Walker Higher Secondary School, Dohnavur on the basis of the order of interim stay dated 25.10.2017 in WMP (MD) No.14058 of 2017 in WP (MD) No.17523 of 2017.

22. W.P(MD)No.22446 of 2017 has been filed seeking a writ of Mandamus to forbear the respondents 1 and 2 from approving or registering the third respondent as the Correspondent of St. John's Higher Secondary School, Palayamkottai on the basis of the order of interim stay dated 25.10.2017 in WMP (MD) No.10510 of 2017 in WP (MD) No.13443 of 2017.

23. W.P(MD)No.20118 of 2017 has been filed seeking a writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the impugned order in Na.Ka.No. 26044/F4/2017-1 dated 28.07.2017 and the consequential impugned order in Mu.Mu.No.26044/F4/2017-1 dated 01.09.2017 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.

http://www.judis.nic.in 11/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch

24. W.P(MD)No.20774 of 2017 has been filed seeking a writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the impugned order in Na.Ka.No. 26044/F4/2017-2 dated 28.07.2017 and the consequential impugned order in Mu.Mu.No.26044/F4/2017-2 dated 01.09.2017 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.

25. W.P(MD)No.15916 of 2017 has been filed seeking a writ of Certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings in O.Mu.No.2961/B1/2017 dated 18.07.2017 issued by the 2nd respondent and the proceedings in No.ADM-26/2017-18 dated 31.05.2017 issued by the 5th respondent appointing the 6th respondent and quash the same and permit the petitioner to continue as Manager as per the proceedings dated 5.6.2017 issued by the 3 rd respondent.

26. W.P(MD)No.14392 of 2017 has been filed seeking a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 5 th respondent on 14.7.2017 in No.ADM.175/2017-18 appointing 6th respondent as Correspondent of St. John's College of Education, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 not to entertain any appointment of Correspondent including the 6th respondent for St. John's College of Education, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli.

http://www.judis.nic.in 12/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch

27. W.P(MD)No.14740 of 2017 has been filed seeking a writ of Certiorari to call for the impugned order of transfer by the 3rd respondent dated 21.07.2017 served on 03.08.2017 and the impugned order of transfer by the 3rd respondent dated 2.8.2017 served on 4.8.2017 and quash the same.

28. W.P(MD)No.14741 of 2017 has been filed seeking a writ of Certiorari to call for the impugned order of transfer dated 21.07.2017 of the 3 rd respondent served on the petitioner on 03.08.2017 and quash the same.

29. W.P(MD)No.13729 of 2017 has been filed seeking a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order of transfer of the 2 nd respondent dated 21.07.2017 and the impugned relieving order of the 3 rd respondent dated 21.07.2017 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to permit the petitioner to continue her service in the 3rd respondent school, till her retirement i.e., on 31.12.2017.

30. W.P(MD)No.13747 of 2017 has been filed seeking a writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the impugned order passed by the 8 th respondent dated 21.07.2017 and the consequential order passed by the 9th respondent dated 21.07.2017 and quash the same as illegal.

http://www.judis.nic.in 13/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch

31. W.P(MD)No.13748 of 2017 has been filed seeking a writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the impugned order passed by the 8 th respondent dated 21.07.2017 and the consequential order passed by the 9th respondent dated 21.07.2017 and quash the same as illegal.

32. W.P(MD)No.13749 of 2017 has been filed seeking a writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the impugned order of transfer passed by the 8th respondent dated 21.07.2017 and the consequential order of relieving passed by the 9 th respondent dated 21.07.2017 and quash the both as illegal.

33. W.P(MD)No.13873 of 2017 has been filed seeking a writ of Mandamus to forbear the respondents 9 to 12 from transferring the petitioner from the post of Junior Assistant in Florence Swainson Higher Secondary School for the Deaf, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.

34. W.P(MD)No.24066 of 2017 has been filed seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to provide re-employment to the petitioner as Headmistress of Sarah Tucker Higher Secondary School, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli till the end of the academic year 2017-18 i.e. upto 31.5.2018.

35. Since the core issue revolved around in the present batch of writ petitions is one and the same, they are taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common order.

http://www.judis.nic.in 14/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch

36. Despite notices served on all the respondents and their names having been printed in the cause list, some of the respondents were called absent. However, the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal, on merits, since the same will not affect them in any manner whatsoever.

37. For better appreciation, the reliefs sought for in this batch of writ petitions, are tabulated as under:

To quash the inclusion of name of R.Devadoss Gnanaraj as Director in the Company Master Data

2. 17952 of 2017 with effect from 11.07.2017 on the file of the Registrar of Companies, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Chennai – 6.

3. 17517 of 2017

4. 17518 of 2017

5. 17519 of 2017 The petitioners herein have been appointed in

6. 17520 of 2017 various posts by the Administrative Committee

7. 17521 of 2017 appointed by CSI Synod and they have challenged

8. 17522 of 2017 the appointments made by the newly elected office

9. 17523 of 2017 bearers and obtained orders of interim stay.

10. 17524 of 2017

11. 13443 of 2017 http://www.judis.nic.in 15/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch

12. 22667 of 2017

13. 22668 of 2017

14. 22669 of 2017 The petitioners have been appointed in various

15. 22670 of 2017 posts by the newly elected office bearers and they

16. 22813 of 2017 sought to forbear the approval of appointments

17. 22814 of 2017 made by the Administrative Committee appointed

18. 22815 of 2017 by CSI Synod.

19. 22816 of 2017

20. 22446 of 2017

21. 20118 of 2017

22. 20774 of 2017 Challenge has been made to the appointments

23. 15916 of 2017 made by the newly elected office bearers.

24. 14392 of 2017

25. 14740 of 2017

26. 14741 of 2017

27. 13729 of 2017

28. 13747 of 2017 Challenge has been made to the transfer orders

29. 13748 of 2017 made by the newly elected office bearers.

30. 13749 of 2017

31. 13873 of 2017 Seeking re-employment till the end of the

32. 24066 of 2017 academic year 2017-2018.

BACKGROUND FACTS:

The 15th respondent/ Tirunelveli Diocesan Trust Association (in short “TDTA”) is a body incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913 and the very purpose of its incorporation is to aid and further the work of CSI Synod in the Diocese of Tirunelveli and manage the institutions, properties and income of the Diocese. Thus, the TDTA is an integral part of the Diocese.

39. The petitioner further stated that barring religious activities, the Diocese is running more than 325 Educational Institutions including large number of Government Aided Colleges, Higher Secondary Schools, Teacher Training Institutions, Colleges, besides Health Care Institutions, throughout the District of Tirunelveli. The educational and health care institutions are tendering commendable service to the under-privileged sections of the society and as such, the Diocese is discharging the http://www.judis.nic.in 17/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch public function of imparting education to the general public and providing health care at a very low cost. Thus, the functioning of the Diocese is inter-linked with statutory authorities controlling the field of education and health. The respondents 8 to 13 are all public sector banks, wherein the Diocese is maintaining its accounts for the purpose of running the educational and health care institutions.

40. It is also the case of the petitioner that the election for the post of Executive Council of the Diocese has become highly controversial due to influence of the persons having interest and ulterior motives. The Management of all the above institutions of the Diocese involves handling of hundreds of crores of money every year. The Secretary and the Treasurer of Tirunelveli Diocese's Executive Committee are vested with enormous powers in respect of management of such institutions including powers of appointments, transfers, etc. As such, the election of the Diocesan Executive Committee has assumed different trends in recent years. The election for the Diocese has to be conducted once in four years at four phases:

From the year 2011 onwards, the election for the post of Executive Council of the Diocese was subjected to various litigations and one among such litigations is pending in O.S.No.128 of 2011 on the file of the learned Additional Subordinate http://www.judis.nic.in 18/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch Judge, Tirunelveli.

41. The petitioner further claimed that from the year 2011, for the conduct of election, various Advocate Commissioners were appointed by the Subordinate Court and the final phase of such election was concluded in the year 2013 and the Executive Council took charge from March 2013. However, applications were moved before the Courts of law. Subsequently, C.R.P(MD)No.408 of 2017 was filed and this Court, by order dated 24.03.2017, while disposing of the said civil revision petition, directed to conduct the fourth phase of election afresh. As regards the post of Treasurer, it was specifically directed that Church Committee has to be constituted by the Bishop, Tirunelveli Diocese and the Committee shall give proposals to the Advocate Commissioner and specific regulation of the Constitution of Diocese has to be followed. Subsequently, the elections were conducted and the Advocate Commissioner has filed his report before the Additional Subordinate Court, Tirunelveli, who has not passed any order on the Commissioner's report.

42. It is also stated by the petitioner that during April 2017, a group of persons under the guidance of the 16th respondent, declared themselves to have been elected and they occupied the office of the Tirunelveli Diocese and also its institutions by unilaterally assuming power and thereby, violated the Constitution of Tirunelveli Diocese. The said group declared one Devadoss Gnanaraj, 17th respondent as Treasurer, by violating the directions issued by this Court in respect of election to the post of Treasurer, besides violating the Constitution of the Diocese in http://www.judis.nic.in 19/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch toto.

43. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid group of persons indulged in appointments in the institutions and effected transfers by receiving illegal gratification, which resulted in dissolving the alleged elected committee by the CSI Synod, by proceedings dated 30.05.2017 and 31.05.2017. Further, the CSI Synod appointed an independent Administrative Committee. As such, the Diocese and all its institutions are coming under the management of the Administrative Committee appointed by CSI Synod. However, even after dissolution, the respondents 16 and 17 and their henchmen are in physical occupation and control of the Diocese and the respondents 1 to 13 are entertaining them as the Executive Committee of the Diocese till today, in violation of the CSI Synod's resolution. Though the petitioner has been specifically appointed as Financial Administrator, Administrative Committee by the CSI Synod, vide proceedings dated 31.05.2017, he was not permitted to operate the bank accounts of the Diocese. Aggrieved thereby, he filed the writ petition in W.P(MD)No.21134 of 2017.

44. The 14th respondent – the Bishop, Tirunelveli Diocese, has filed a counter affidavit inter alia contending that the respondents 16 and 17 made appointments in violation of the provisions of the Constitution of Tirunelveli Diocese. After coming to know about the same, the CSI Synod appointed an Administrative Committee for managing the Diocese, by proceedings dated 31.05.2017. As there is no challenge to the above said proceedings, the same has become final and as of now, the Administrative Committee appointed by the Synod of Church of South India alone is http://www.judis.nic.in 20/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch empowered to manage the affairs of the Diocese. The respondents 16 and 17 are illegally claiming to be the Secretary and the Diocese of Tirunelveli and TDTA. Thus, the 14th respondent – the Bishop, Tirunelveli Diocese, supported the case of the petitioner in W.P(MD)No.21134 of 2017.

W.P(MD)No.17952 of 2017:

45. According to the petitioner - P.Puhshparaj, TDTA is a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act with the first respondent. The TDTA is constituted for the purpose of holding the properties of Diocese of Tirunelveli. The Diocese of Tirunelveli is an unregistered body of Christians (CSI) in Tirunelveli District. The fourth respondent is governed by its constitution, written rules and regulations headed by the Bishop. The Bishop is elected by an electoral college and he shall hold the post till he reaches the age of superannuation.

46. The election to the membership and offices of various bodies in Tirunelveli Diocese would be conducted once in four years in accordance with its constitution. The highest decision making body is known as 'Diocesan Council' and that the members of the said Council would elect its Executive Committee and office bearers. TDTA is governed by its Memorandum and Articles of Association (in short ‘Memorandum’). By virtue of the provisions of the Memorandum, the members elected to the Executive Committee would become the members of the TDTA. Such http://www.judis.nic.in 21/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch members would further constitute a management of Committee of the third respondent comprising of not less than three and not more than eight members. The Memorandum further provides that the Bishop of the Tirunelveli Diocese and the Treasurer of the Diocese Council would automatically become the ex-officio members of the TDTA.

47. The petitioner further stated that he is an elected member of the Executive Committee of Tirunelveli Diocese and he is also a member of the third respondent Company. While so, on 08.09.2017, he received a notice of AGM of the third respondent company to be held on 28.09.2017 in Palayamkottai. He stated that it was surprising to note that the said notice was sent by the second respondent claiming himself to be the Secretary and the Treasurer of the third respondent Company. On verification of the records from the file of the first respondent, it was found that the name of the second respondent is included as one of the Directors of the third respondent with effect from 21.07.2017. It was also found that Form No.DIR 12 was submitted by the members with a resolution appointing the second respondent as a Treasurer of Diocesan Council and by virtue of the same, the Form was submitted to the first respondent stating that the second respondent was the Director as well as the Treasurer of the TDTA. The first respondent, without any verification, accepted the Form and effected changes in the records in respect of the third respondent. Though several representations were made to the first respondent questioning the resolution of the Diocesan Council and the void election of the Treasurer, the first respondent did not come forward to consider the same. http://www.judis.nic.in 22/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch Therefore, he filed the writ petition in W.P(MD)No.17952 of 2017.

48. TDTA - the third respondent filed a counter affidavit, denying all the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and inter alia contending as follows:

Accordingly, the Commissioner conducted elections for phases 1 and 2 and submitted his report to the Court.

http://www.judis.nic.in 23/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch 48.3. While so, the Bishop filed an application in I.A.No.272 of 2011 seeking for a change of the Commissioner, who has also filed a Memo before the trial Court expressing his disinclination to continue as Commissioner and the trial Court passed an order appointing one Soundarapandian, a Retired District Judge as Commissioner to conduct the further phases of election. Accordingly, he conducted the election for five Church Councils excluding the North Church Council through Observers appointed by the Court. The ballot papers for four Church Councils had been counted by the Commissioner and he had submitted his report to the trial Court. The counting of the ballot papers for the South Church Council had been postponed by the orders of the City Civil Court, Chennai.

48.4. Since the counting process insofar as the North West, South West and West Church Councils had not been done as per law, an application in I.A.No.292 of 2011 was filed seeking re-counting of the ballot papers in respect of the above three Church Councils, which were ordered by the trial Court, on 16.04.2012 and 20.04.2012, by making it clear that after the process of re-counting, the election for the next phase should continue. In the meantime, the Commissioner has filed a Memo stating that he is not inclined to continue as Commissioner, pursuant to which, one Mr.Rathnaraj, a Retired District Judge, was appointed as Commissioner to pursue the election process including the election for the North Church Council and also the re-counting process. The said order was confirmed by this Court in C.R.P (MD)Nos. 1081 and 1030 of 2012, on 06.12.2012.

http://www.judis.nic.in 24/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch 48.5. The Commissioner re-counted the votes and submitted his report stating that the ballot boxes kept in the office of the Bishop had been tampered and the locks had been broken and the seals were not intact, which shows the malpractice done by the Bishop. To set aside the said report, a Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P (MD) No.1362 of 2013 was filed, which was disposed of, by directing the parties to approach the trial Court. The trial Court allowed the application to set aside the election for the three Church Councils in the third phase. The revision filed against the said order in C.R.P(MD) No.408 of 2017 was also dismissed by this Court, by order dated 24.03.2017, observing that in the interest of justice, election may be restricted to third phase only for the three Church Councils and after conclusion of third phase election, the Commissioner shall proceed to conduct the election in respect of the fourth phase. It was also observed that after completion of fourth phase election, the term of elected office bearers shall commence from the date of first meeting for four years. The trial Court was directed to appoint a Commissioner to conduct election within three months and file a report, pursuant to which, one Dharmaraj, Advocate was appointed as Commissioner, who conducted the third phase of elections for the three disputed Church Councils and subsequently, to the fourth phase of the Diocesan Council.

48.6. While so, the Bishop filed a revision in C.R.P(MD)No.816 of 2017 claiming that the election conducted by the Commissioner in respect of the fourth phase is not proper and is sought to be set aside. In the said petition, this Court http://www.judis.nic.in 25/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch appointed one Thayumanasamy, Advocate, as an Election Observer and directed the same Commissioner to re-do the thing in the presence of the Observer. Accordingly, the election for the fourth phase was conducted on 23.04.2017 and the Commissioner and the Observer filed their reports. After conclusion of election process, the results were declared, as per the order of this Court.

48.7. According to the third respondent, this petitioner is one of the elected members of the Executive Committee of the Diocese of Tirunelveli. Thus, he had become the member of the TDTA/third respondent. As per Chapter X, Rule 17 of the Constitution of the Pastorate Committees, Church Councils, Diocesan Synod and The Diocesan Council, Diocese of Tirunelveli (in short ‘CDT’), the Bishop shall appoint a Church Committee consisting of two clergy men and three lay representatives and out of the three lay representatives, one representative must be a lady. In the case on hand, the Bishop constituted a Church Committee consisting of five persons. The Commissioner sent a letter to the Bishop requesting him to send a proposal for conducting election for the post of Treasurer, for which, the Bishop sent a reply stating that one Selvin was nominated by the Church Committee and his nomination has to be placed before the Diocesan Council for affirmative vote in the meeting to be held on 23.04.2017. The Diocesan Council rejected the proposal to appoint him as the Treasurer, since there were 75 votes in his favour, whereas, 192 votes against his election. After rejection of the proposal, the Church Committee did not forward any other name for deliberation before the Diocesan Council. The Bishop - the fourth http://www.judis.nic.in 26/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch respondent herein, is inimical towards the persons now elected and holding their office and even from the very first stage of election, he had been creating chaos and confusion in the election process.

48.8. Subsequently, on declaration of results, the elected office bearers assumed charge on 23.04.2017. The Executive Committee of the Diocese had been convened on 15.05.2017, in which, the Bishop did not participate and the petitioner as well. The members of the Diocesan Executive Committee are the members of the TDTA, as per its Memorandum. The Executive Committee, feeling that without the presence of the Treasurer, it cannot function, co-opted the second respondent, viz., Devadoss Gnanaraj as Treasurer of the Executive Committee. Since all the members of the Executive Committee unanimously accepted the proposal, the second respondent was appointed as the Treasurer. Though the petitioner and the Bishop - the fourth respondent are also the members of the Executive Committee, they did not challenge the resolution passed by the Diocesan Executive Committee in its meeting held on 15.05.2017, appointing the second respondent as Treasurer. Subsequently, the Extraordinary General Meeting convened on 11.07.2017 was attended by 34 members. The TDTA/the third respondent elected a committee of Management consisting of six persons, the second respondent and the Bishop. The thirty four members, who attended the Extraordinary General Meeting, ratified the appointment of the second respondent as the Treasurer of Diocesan Executive Committee and consequently, as the Secretary-cum-Treasurer of the Committee of http://www.judis.nic.in 27/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch Management. The said resolution passed on 11.07.2017 has not been challenged either by the petitioner or by the Bishop till date. Stating so, TDTA - the third respondent prayed for dismissal of the writ petition in W.P(MD)No.17952 of 2017. W.P(MD)Nos.17517 to 17524 & 13443 of 2017:

49. The petitioners herein have been appointed in various institutions by the Administrative Committee appointed by the CSI Synod. Challenging the approval of the appointments allegedly made by the newly elected office bearers of Diocese and TDTA, the present writ petitions have been filed and they also obtained interim order of stay till the disposal of the main writ petitions.

W.P(MD)Nos.22667 to 22670, 22813 to 22816 & 22446 of 2017:

50. The petitioners herein are the individuals, who have been appointed by the newly elected office bearers of Diocese and TDTA and they have come before this Court seeking to forbear the Chief Educational Officer, Tirunelveli and the District Educational Officer, Tirunelveli, from approving or registering the individuals appointed by the Administrative Committee of the CSI Synod based on the interim order of stay already obtained by them in W.P(MD)Nos.17517 to 17524 and 13443 of 2017.

W.P(MD)Nos.20118, 20774, 15916 & 14392 of 2017:

51. Challenging the approval given by the official respondents in respect of the appointments made by the newly elected office bearers, the present writ petitions have been filed.

http://www.judis.nic.in 28/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch W.P(MD)Nos.14740, 14741, 13729, 13747 to 13749, 13873 of 2017:

52. Challenging the transfer orders made by the newly elected office bearers, the present writ petitions have been filed by the individuals concerned. W.P(MD)No.24066 of 2017:

53. The petitioner herein has sought for re-employment as Headmistress of Sarah Tucker Higher Secondary School, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli, till the end of the academic year 2017-2018, i.e., upto 31.05.2018.

CONTENTIONS:

54. Mr.A.Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr.R.Bharanidharan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner (Financial Administrator of the Tirunelveli Diocese appointed by CSI Synod) made the following submissions:

Thus, the respondents 14 and 15 are bound by the instructions and proceedings of the CSI Synod. It is to be noted that the supremacy of the CSI has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in http://www.judis.nic.in 29/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch 2009 (4) LW 742 (supra).

(b) When that being so, the CSI has appointed an Administrative Committee, vide proceedings dated 31.05.2017 to manage the Diocese and all its institutions and thereby, the respondents 1 to 13 are bound to recognize only the Administrative Committee appointed by the CSI as management of the Diocese and all its institutions. However, the respondents 1 to 13 did not recognize the Administrative Committee appointed by the CSI and thus, the action of the authorities in not recognizing the Administrative Committee, whereas, entertaining the respondents 16 and 17 as persons in the management of the Diocese, is highly arbitrary and unconstitutional.

(c) When the law in this regard has already been settled by the Honourable Supreme Court, which binds all the statutory authorities, the respondents 1 to 13 are bound to follow the same, otherwise, large number of educational and health care institutions run by the Diocese would suffer irreparable damage and would cause harmful to the respect of the Diocese.

(d) Placing reliance upon Rule 7 of the Rules of the Councils and Committees of the Diocese of Tirunelveli (in short “the Rules”), it is submitted that in all matters not specifically mentioned in this Constitution, the Diocesan Council follows the general principles and rules of the Constitution of the CSI. As per Rule 31 of the Rules, the power to make rules and pass resolutions vests with Diocesan Council. The preparation of agenda, as per Rule 15, should include any subject that may be forwarded for discussion by the Synod, the Bishop of http://www.judis.nic.in 30/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch the Diocese, the Diocesan Executive Committee or any of the Church Councils of the Diocese.

(e) In support of the same, he relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in (2009) 8 MLJ 548 : 2009 (4) LW 742 (supra), more particularly, paragraph 17, wherein it has been held as follows:

11. As noted earlier, Office of Synod/Secretariat is situated at No. 5, Whites Road, Royapettah, Chennai. The Moderator shall be the Presiding Officer of the Synod and Chairman of its Executive Committee. The Moderator shall be the financial representative of the Church during his term of office in all business and other Churches or organizations.

http://www.judis.nic.in 32/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch ...

18. By a careful reading of the Rules under Chapter VIII, it is seen that Diocesan Council has power to frame, amend or alter its own Constitution and the Diocesan Council is to deal with matters, which concern its own Diocese. Each Diocese would exercise the powers and function of administration within its Territory on the basis of its own Constitution. To put it shortly, Tirunelveli Diocese would be governed by its extant Rules – Constitution of Tirunelveli Diocese. The Diocese is governed by its own Rules and its own Constitution. As per Chapter VIII, Rule 3, Diocesan Council shall state in its own Constitution the necessary qualification and method of election. Chapter VIII, Rule 3 reads as under:

http://www.judis.nic.in 33/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch While so, the First Respondent is not at all a necessary party to this Suit. Even, if certain allegations are levelled against the Bishop that is not the ground for the Moderator to interfere in the internal administration of Tirunelveli Diocese.”

(h) The learned Senior Counsel further placed reliance on paragraph 5 of the order, dated 21.08.2018, passed in CRP (MD) (PD) No.970 of 2018 wherein it has been observed as follows:

The counter claim is dismissed. Both parties directed to bear their own costs’.”

(i) Stating so, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the prayer sought for by the petitioner herein - R.Jeyakumar Jayaraj, Financial Administrator, http://www.judis.nic.in 34/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch Administrative Committee of Tirunelveli Diocese appointed by CSI Synod, is perfectly valid and if the same is not granted, the institutions run by the Tirunelveli Diocese would be put to irreparable loss and hence, this writ petition has to be allowed.

55. Supporting the case of the petitioner in W.P(MD)No.21134 of 2017, Mr.Thangasivan, learned Counsel appearing for the 14th respondent – the Bishop, through his written submissions, submitted the following:

Therefore, he prays for appropriate orders.

56. Per contra, Mr.Karthik Sheshadri, learned Counsel representing Mr.T.L.Thirumalaisamy, learned counsel for the 15th respondent - TDTA, (also supporting the case of R-5 in WP No.15916/2017, R-2 & R-4 in W.P.No.13729 of 2017, R-2 in 13828 of 2017, R-6 & R-8 in W.P.Nos.13747, 13748, 13749, R-4 in W.P.Nos.13443, 17518, 17519 to 17524 of 2017, R-3 in WP Nos.20118 & 20774 of 2017, R-6 in W.P.No.14392 of 2017, R-5 & R-9 in W.P.No.13873 of 2017, R-3 & R-4 in W.P.Nos.14740, 14741 of 2017) (also for petitioner in WP No.22446, 22667 to 22670, 22813 to 22816 of 2017), would submit that the decision of the Executive Committee of the Synod is per se illegal, since the same was never communicated to the TDTA or its Committee of Management. Further, it's decision is an abuse of power, as there is no power to supersede a duly elected Board or Committee of Management of the http://www.judis.nic.in 36/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch TDTA. Once the members have elected the Committee of Management of the TDTA, they can be removed only in the manner known to law. A Director can be removed before the expiry of his tenure only by passing an ordinary resolution by the company in a general meeting, which is prescribed under Section 169 of the Companies Act, 2013. Moreover, it can be done only after issuing a special notice to the Director. The Director, upon receipt of such notice, is entitled to be heard at the meeting. Thus, the decision of the Executive Committee of the Synod certainly amounts to violation of the procedures prescribed under the relevant Act. Likewise, the affairs of the TDTA are governed by its Articles of Association, which empowers the Committee to manage the same. The Committee of Management is entitled to authorize such persons to operate the bank accounts and other financial transactions of TDTA as per Article 18 of its own Articles of Association. The Synod's Executive Committee has no power to administer the TDTA by superseding the Board / Committee of Management of TDTA and empowering the petitioner to be the Financial Administrator. In support of the same, he relied on the following provisions:

57. Mr.Lakshminarayanan, learned Counsel representing Mr.T.Mathi, learned Counsel for the 16th respondent/Vedhanayagam, by supporting the arguments of the learned Counsel for TDTA/third respondent, additionally submitted the following:

http://www.judis.nic.in 41/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch 57.2. The learned Counsel also relied upon the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Rev.D.K.Stephen v. Rev. D.David Anbu Prabakaran and three others [W.P.(MD)No.18161 of 2018, dated 17.08.2018], wherein the petitioner therein sought for quashing the order and for a direction to restrain from interfering with the Church conferences and religious meetings dated 18.08.2018 and on future dates at St. Paul’s Church, within the Tirunelveli Diocese of Church of South India. The learned Judge has dismissed the said writ petition by observing as follows:-

W.P(MD)No.17952 of 2017:

58. Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai, learned Counsel for the petitioner - P.Pushparaj made the following submissions:

http://www.judis.nic.in 43/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch 58.3. The Diocese, being an unregistered body, a separate Association known as TDTA, is constituted and incorporated as a company under the provisions of the Companies Act . The said TDTA is governed by its Memorandum and will hold the properties of the Diocese as its Trustee. The Memorandum provides that the Bishop of the Tirunelveli Diocese and the Treasurer of the Diocese Council would automatically become the ex-officio members of the third respondent Association. The Bishop shall be the Chairman of TDTA.

58.4. While so, on 08.09.2017, the petitioner received a notice of AGM to be held on 28.09.2017, whereas, surprisingly, it was found that the same was sent by the second respondent claiming himself to be the Secretary and Treasurer of the third respondent Company. Thereafter, the petitioner found that the name of the second respondent is included as one of the Directors of the third respondent with effect from 21.07.2017. Form DIR 12 was submitted by the members with an alleged resolution appointing the second respondent as Treasurer, which was accepted by the first respondent without any verification. Thus, the action of the first respondent in accepting Form No.DIR-12 submitted by the third respondent Company without any verification as to its correctness and effecting changes insofar as the inclusion of the name of the second respondent as the Director and the Treasurer of the third respondent company is illegal, arbitrary and suffers from non-application of mind.

58.5. Rule 17 Chapter X of the CDT provides that for the election of Treasurer, the Bishop has to constitute a church committee and such committee shall propose the name to the Diocesan Council for the post of Treasurer and the Diocesan Council http://www.judis.nic.in 44/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch to elect such person by affirmative vote. If the proposed person failed to get majority votes, then, the church committee will bring another name for affirmative vote and the Treasurer can be elected only after the name is proposed by the church committee of the Bishop.

58.6. In the case on hand, the election to Tirunelveli Diocese was conducted after some legal battles and the Church Committee proposed the name of one Selvin and the same was conveyed by the Bishop on 22.04.2017. However, the said Selvin failed to get the affirmative votes in the election held on 23.04.2017. The Commissioner, instead of calling for another name from the Church Committee, filed his report and hence, no Treasurer was elected. Taking advantage of the said situation, the Executive Committee passed a resolution on 21.07.2017, appointing the second respondent as Treasurer as well as the Director of TDTA. Though certain Rules, viz., Chapter IV Rule 37, Rule 39, Chapter V Rule 11 and Chapter VII Rule 2 and Rule 3 of CDT are cited in the resolution, none of them would empower the Executive Committee to appoint a person as Treasurer of the Tirunelveli Diocese. Thus, the appointment is absolutely without jurisdiction, null and void and is of no legal effect.

58.7. By virtue of the provisions of the Constitution of Diocese of Tirunelveli and by the orders of the Sub Court as well as this Court, it is only the Commissioner, who has to conduct the election for the post of Treasurer and that too, by calling for the names from the Church Committee and not otherwise. Therefore, the deviation from the Rules and the orders of this Court with regard to election of Treasurer is null http://www.judis.nic.in 45/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch and void and is of no legal sanctity. In such circumstances, the second respondent cannot be considered as the elected Treasurer of Tirunelveli Diocese and hence, he would not be an ex-officio member of the third respondent. When the second respondent is not an ex-officio member, he cannot be appointed as Director or to hold the post of Treasurer of the third respondent. Thus, the second respondent has no right to claim, act or convene any meeting of the TDTA, claiming himself as the Director, Secretary and Treasurer of the TDTA. Furthermore, since the election was conducted, pursuant to the order of the trial Court and the issue is pending in the suit in O.S.No.128 of 2011 on the file of the2 Additional Sub Court, Tirunelveli, it is for the TDTA or the Executive Committee of the Diocesan Council to approach the said Court seeking appropriate reliefs and without doing so, the TDTA, on its own motion, took a decision to appoint the Treasurer, which is against the Constitution and violative of the order of this Court.

58.8. Further, there is no report from the Commissioner that the Bishop failed or refused to suggest another name for the post of Treasurer, when the first person did not get affirmative votes. Even, if the Bishop refused to do so, it is incumbent on the part of the concerned parties to approach the Court below seeking necessary directions. More so, only a person, who is elected in accordance with the constitution of the Diocese, can enter his name in the records of the company.

58.9. He further placed reliance on Chapter X, Rule 17 (b) of the CDT, which deals with the procedure to elect Diocesan Treasurer and it reads thus:

Rule 39. There shall be an Executive Committee of the Diocesan Council, to carry on the work of the Diocesan Council between its sessions. The membership and functions of the Diocesan Executive Committee shall be as set forth in Chapter V of the Constitution and the Diocesan Council shall at its first meeting after each election, choose its representative to serve on the Diocesan Executive Committee as provided in Chapter X Rule 23.” Thus, the learned counsel prayed for appropriate orders. http://www.judis.nic.in 48/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch

59. Per contra, Mr.R.Nandakumar, learned Senior Panel Counsel for the first respondent / Registrar of Companies, besides denying the fact that the e-forms of the company and minutes of the Board of Directors passed for appointment of the Director, were accepted by R-1 and effected changes in respect of TDTA, submitted that the documents filed by the petitioner on the e-record of the company were taken on record under automatic mode of STP (Straight Through Process). He further submitted that the appointment and cessation of Directors of company pertains to internal management of the company and is governed by its Articles of Association and thus, the documents filed on the e-record of the first respondent are taken on record without prejudice to the rights of the parties to settle their disputes before the Court of competent authority. Therefore, the first respondent kept the matter pending stating that the rival claims were made by the parties and that an order of interim stay was granted by this Court.

60. Countering the arguments of the petitioner in W.P(MD)No.17952 of 2017 as well as the first respondent, Mr.Karthik Shesadri learned counsel representing Mr.J.Bharathan, learned Counsel for the third respondent / TDTA contended thus:

The Bishop shall act as Chairman and all banking and other transactions shall be carried out in the name of TDTA by such person or persons as the Committee of Management.

http://www.judis.nic.in 49/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch 60.2. The Diocesan Executive Committee, in its meeting convened on 15.05.2017, nominated and appointed the second respondent as Treasurer by way of a Resolution. However, the petitioner and the fourth respondent, being the members of the Executive Committee have not challenged the said resolution. When that being so, challenging the uploading of data by the first respondent is not at all maintainable.

60.3. As per the Articles of Association, the members of the Diocesan Executive Committee would automatically become the members of the TDTA / third respondent. The members of the TDTA / third respondent convened an extraordinary general meeting on 11.07.2017, in which, the members had elected a Committee of Management, which consists of six persons, the second respondent and the Bishop. The appointment of the second respondent as Treasurer of the Diocesan Executive Committee was ratified by the members, who attended the meeting, by way of the resolution dated 11.07.2017. The said Resolution was also not challenged either by the petitioner or by the Bishop. Thus, the writ petition in W.P(MD)No.17952 of 2017 filed by P.Pushparaj is not at all maintainable and the same deserves to be dismissed for the reason that the Articles of Association provided for appointment of Treasurer and there is no illegality in the said appointment.

60.4. The third respondent is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1913 and presently, governed by the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 . Furthermore, Section 241(1) of the Companies Act, 2013 provides that any member of the company, who has grievances, has to approach the http://www.judis.nic.in 50/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch Tribunal, viz., the National Company Law Tribunal constituted under Section 408. Section 242 also enables the petitioner to seek redressal of his grievances before the Tribunal. When the Companies Act specifically provides for certain redressal mechanism, the petitioner cannot file the present Writ Petition by knocking the doors of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without availing the alternative remedy in accordance with law.

60.5. When the Resolution passed in the meeting of the members of the company is submitted to the first respondent, he has no power to conduct any enquiry as to its correctness. The power of the first respondent in that regard is very limited, as held by the Honourable Supreme Court as well as this Court. Thus, the first respondent has to simply take it on file and update the records. The correctness of such entries is purely within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Therefore, the very challenge made by the petitioner relating to the Company Master Data on the file of the first respondent is unsustainable in law. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition in W.P(MD)No.17952 of 2017.

61. Mr.S.Thankasivan, learned Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent / Bishop, taking shelter under the preamble to ‘Rules of the Councils and Committees of the Diocese of Tirunelveli' submitted the following:

Further, under Chapter X Rule 31 of the CDT, the Supremacy of the CSI Synod is http://www.judis.nic.in 51/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch recognised and the CSI has also empowered the Synod to take necessary action against the Diocesan Councils. Rule 31 reads thus:

26. Once again the answer would be in the negative for the reason that the final say is with the Synod. The election has to take place from among the Bishops, who in a religious hierarchy are at the highest level. They from amongst them would find a suitable person and that too by unanimity or an overwhelming majority of two-third. The matter does not end at this since the Synod would have to ratify the same by a simple majority. Thus, if a member of the Synod is not happy with the nomination, they have a right of rejection. In such eventuality, the matter would go back to the Bishops, who then would nominate two persons by a secret ballot for consideration by the Synod. The choice would then be with the Synod to elect by a simple majority. The final say thus remains with the Synod, but the collective wisdom of the Bishops as to who among them should be the Moderator has been given weightage. This cannot ipso facto be called a derogation of the Constitution, especially when the bye-laws have been approved, as also the amendment to the Constitution. The position would be the same in case of Deputy Moderator and the only difference for the posts of General Secretary and Treasurer would be that the nomination would be of the Committee which is, in fact, a more representative body as constituted.” http://www.judis.nic.in 55/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch 61.6. He also relied on Chapter VI of CDT, which deals with standing committees of the Diocesan Council in detail and supported the submissions of Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai, learned Counsel for the petitioner / one of the elected Executive Committee Members, on Chapter X Rule 17 (b) of the CDT, which deals with the procedure to elect Diocesan Treasurer, stated supra.

62. In reply to the aforesaid contentions, Mr.R.Bharanidharan, learned Counsel appearing for the sixth respondent (Financial Administrator appointed by the CSI Synod’s proceedings) who is also the petitioner in W.P(MD)No.21134 of 2017, relied upon Chapter IX Rule 19 of the CDT and submitted that the Diocesan Synod has power to alter the Constitution, rules and regulations of the Diocesan Synod by a two-thirds majority of those present and voting, at two successive sessions of the Diocesan Synod separately by an interval of not less than eleven months, and subject to the Constitution of the Church of South India. He further submitted that all alterations shall be submitted to the Synod of the Church of South India after they have been passed by the Diocesan Council at its first session.

63. Whereas the learned Counsel for the Bishop/petitioner in W.P(MD)No.20118 of 2017, as a counter contention to all the writ petitions, submitted that there is no power vested under the Rules or Articles of the Diocese for a Correspondent to make any appointments. He also relied on General Rules of CDT, more particularly, Rule 6, wherein it is stated that the Bishop of the Diocese http://www.judis.nic.in 56/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch shall preside over all meetings of the Diocesan Council and its Committees and he shall also have a right to preside over all Subordinate Councils and Committees of the Diocese. Hence, he submitted that the appointment, if any, to be made, vests only with the Bishop and the appointments made by the Correspondent of the School of newly elected committee is per se illegal.

64. The learned counsel further submitted that the Diocese being an unregistered body, a separate Association known as TDTA, is governed by its Memorandum and Articles of Association and is incorporated as a Company under the provisions of the Companies Act , which holds the properties of the Diocese in Trust for Diocese as its Trustee; by virtue of the provisions of the Memorandum, the Executive Committee of the Diocesan Council would become the members of the TDTA; the Bishop (petitioner herein) shall be the ex-officio member and will hold the post of Chairman of TDTA. He relied on Chapter IV, Rule 2 of the CDT wherein it is stated that the first among the four representatives is the Bishop. Chapter IV, Rules 6 and 31 of the CDT read thus:

65. Mr. R.J.Karthick, learned Counsel for the petitioner (Manager of the TDTA Primary and Middle Schools in the Diocese of Tirunelveli), submitted that the Administrative Committee appointed by the Synod alone is having power to control the Diocese; the Bishop alone is competent to appoint Manager for all TDTA Elementary Schools, as per Rule 50, Chapter 2 of the Diocesan Constitution; since the institution is run by the minority management, it is entitled for protection under Article 30 of the Constitution of India and the authorities cannot interfere with the administration and functioning of the CSI and hence, the impugned proceedings issued by the second respondent is ultra vires.

W.P(MD)Nos.14740 & 14741 of 2017:

66. Mr.Veera Kathiravan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P(MD)Nos.14740 and 14741 of 2017, etc. cases, submitted that the petitioners, who are teachers under the TDTA, are transferred based upon the resolution of the http://www.judis.nic.in 58/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch newly elected Committee. He also relied on Chapter IV, Rule 31 of the CDT and submitted that the Synod is the supreme governing and legislative body of the Church of South India and the final authority in all matters pertaining to the Church and hence, submitted that the orders of transfer by the elected committee are illegal and liable to be quashed.

W.P(MD)Nos.15916, 13729, 13747, 13748, 13749, 13873, 14740, 14741, 13343, 14392, 17517 to 17524, 20118 & 20774 of 2017; 22446, 22667 to 22670, 24066, 22813 to 22816 14392 of 2017:

67. The remaining writ petitions can be segregated into two sets, viz., (i) W.P.Nos.15916, 13729, 13747, 13748, 13749, 13873, 14740, 14741, 13343, 14392, 17517 to 17524, 20118 & 20774 of 2017 filed by the petitioners, who are the Managers / Correspondents / Headmistress / Teachers / Junior Assistant of the TDTA Schools, appointed by the Synod Appointed Committee; and (ii) W.P.Nos.22446, 22667 to 22670, 24066, 22813 to 22816 14392 of 2017 filed by the petitioners, who are the Correspondents of the TDTA Schools appointed by the elected committee and as approved by the District Educational Officer.

68. Supporting the case of the Elected committee and against the Synod appointed committee, Mr.J.Barathan, learned Counsel, apart from the aforesaid submissions, additionally submitted that the elected office bearers assumed charge on 23.04.2017 on declaration of results and they have their tenure till 23.04.2021; the Executive Committee of Diocese convened a meeting on 15.05.2017 as per http://www.judis.nic.in 59/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch clause 1 (e) of MOA read with Clause 18 (g) of AOA of TDTA presided over by the Vice Chairman, as per Clause 27 (b) of AOA and the same was attended by 33 members out of 50; the Executive Committee appointed the Managers for Colleges, Schools, Hospitals, etc.; the Managers of High Schools and Special Schools appointed the petitioners, in these writ petitions, as Correspondents of the schools; the District Educational Officer, Tirunelveli, in turn, passed an order dated 15.07.2017 approving the petitioners in these writ petitions, as Correspondents, which order came to be challenged in the writ petitions and an order of interim stay was granted; therefore, it is submitted that the prayer sought for a Mandamus to forbear respondents 1 and 2 from approving the District Educational Officer, Tirunelveli, as Correspondents of the Schools, on the basis of the order of interim stay dated 25.10.2017, has to be allowed.

69. Likewise, supporting the Synod appointed committee and against the elected committee, Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai, Mr.K.K.Kannan and Mr.T.A.Ebenezer, learned Counsel additionally submitted that the TDTA is an incorporated society which cannot be superseded by any other statute. They relied on Section 6 of the Companies Act, 1956 and submitted that any provision contained in the memorandum, articles, agreement or resolution shall, to the extent to which it is repugnant to the provisions of the Act, become or be void, as the case may be. They also submitted that the provisions envisaged for Removal of Directors with conditions, under Section 169 of the Companies Act, have not been dealt with by the Synod, in a proper perspective.

http://www.judis.nic.in 60/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch

70. Adding further, the learned counsel relied on Chapter IX, Diocesan Synod, Rules 13, 15 and 5(b) of the CDT and submitted that the rules of debate and putting of motion shall be those ordinarily followed in the councils of the Diocese and contained in Chapter IV Rules 24-27 and that the duty of the Secretary is to record the proceedings of each meeting of the Diocesan Synod in a book kept for the purpose, under the following headings: (i) advise of the Synod of C.S.I. on questions of faith and order; (ii) advise to the Bishop on questions of Faith and order; (iii) petitions to the Synod of CSI on questions of faith and order; (iv) petitions to the Bishop on questions of faith and order, which were duly followed by TDTA.

71. The learned counsel also submitted that Mr.C.G.Arthur Raja / R-4 in W.P(MD)No.13443 of 2017 has filed a suit in C.S.No.36 of 2015 before the Original Side of this Court and sought for an injunction against R-3 / The Moderator, Church of South India, not to intervene into the management of Tirunelveli Diocese of CSI and the same came to be dismissed on 02.01.2017 for non-prosecution; therefore, the fourth respondent has no jurisdiction to appoint anybody as Correspondent or in any post in TDTA; however, by fake claim and influence, the fourth respondent sought approval for various posts in the diocese management and hence, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners, who are appointed by the Synod committee, have to be dismissed and the writ petitions filed by the petitioners, who are appointed through duly elected committee, as Correspondents, have to be allowed. http://www.judis.nic.in 61/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch

72. I have carefully considered the rival submissions of the learned Counsel for all the parties and meticulously perused the materials available on record, including the written submissions and decisions relied thereon and also the voluminous typed set of documents filed in support of the respective claim of the parties. ANALYSIS:

73. Before venturing into the issue at hand, it may be germane to brief about the religious ideology of the institutions run by the parties herein, which runs thus:

(iv) election for selection of office bearers of the Diocesan Council and the Executive Committee. The elected body would hold the power for a period of three years.

75.2. The Bishop is the head of Diocese and is elected by an electoral college and upon such election, the Bishop will hold the post till he reaches the age of sixty seven. The elected members of the Diocesan Executive Committee are the members of the TDTA, as per Article 5 of the Articles of Association of the Company. http://www.judis.nic.in 64/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch 75.3. Tinnevelly Diocesan Trust Association is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1913 . It is governed by the terms of the Act and its constitutional documents, namely, the Memorandum and Articles of Association (MOA and AOA). The membership of TDTA is determined by the members of the Executive Committee of Tirunelveli Diocesan Council, i.e., the members of Tirunelveli Diocesan Council on their signifying the consent to become members, they would become the members of TDTA. Further, as per Articles 6(c) and 6(e) , if a resolution is passed by the 3/4th members of TDTA in general meeting that a member shall cease to be a member or if a member ceases to be a member of the Executive Committee of the Tirunelveli Diocesan Council, a member would cease to be a member of the TDTA.

75.4. The members of the TDTA would elect the Committee of Management to manage the TDTA. The said Committee of Management is the Board of Directors of TDTA, which shall consist of 3 to 8 persons and the Bishop of the Diocese and Treasurer of the Diocesan Council as ex-officio members of the Board.

75.5. The Bishop shall act as Chairman, if he is present and willing to act and Articles 18(a) and 18(i) enumerated the powers of the Board/Committee. All the banking and other transactions shall be carried out in the name of the TDTA by such person or persons as the Committee of Management directs from time to time.

75.6. A suit in O.S.No.128 of 2011 came to be filed by the Members of the CSI Diocese of Tirunelveli against the Diocese of Tirunelveli, represented by the Office of the Bishop along with the incumbent, J.J.Christdoss, seeking a declaration to declare that the election schedule declared by the Bishop as null and void and for a http://www.judis.nic.in 65/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch permanent injunction restraining defendants 2 and 3 from conducting elections for the 1st phase to 4th phase commencing from 24.07.2011 to 20.09.2011 and 30.09.2011 and also for the TDTA committee of Management in any manner; or alternatively, for appointment of a committee, consisting of minimum three members to supervise and to conduct the above elections under the supervision of the Court, according to the Constitution of Tirunelveli Diocese.

75.7. Pending suit, an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.205 of 2011 seeking appointment of a Committee to conduct election, was filed and after contest, after the appointment of five Advocate Commissioners by the Court (one after another), after verdicts of the learned Sub Judge, on 10.02.2017, which was challenged and upheld in C.R.P(MD)No.479 of 2017 before this Court as well as before the Supreme Court in SLP.No.10562 of 2017, the election for office bearers, viz., Vice Chairman, Clerigical Secretary and Lay Secretary and Members of the Diocesan Executive Committee and other Committees was conducted and results were declared on 23.04.2017.

75.8. According to the 14th respondent – the Bishop, Tirunelveli Diocese, after the conclusion of the elections, the respondents 16 and 17 made appointments in violation of the provisions of the Constitution of Tirunelveli Diocese. Therefore, the CSI Synod appointed an Administrative Committee for managing the Diocese, by proceedings dated 31.05.2017. As there is no challenge to the above said proceedings, the same has become final and as of now, the Administrative Committee appointed by the Synod of Church of South India alone is empowered to http://www.judis.nic.in 66/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch manage the affairs of the Diocese. The respondents 16 and 17 are illegally claiming to be the Secretary and the Diocese of Tirunelveli and TDTA.

75.9. By proceedings, dated 30.05.2017, the Synod has recorded that the circumstances prevailed in the Tirunelveli Diocese amounted to a total break-down of the Constitutional Machinery in Diocese and therefore, exercised powers vested in the Synod under Rule 15 (c) of the CSI Constitution read with plenary powers of the Synod in Rules 13 & 14 (Part 1) of Chapter IX of the CSI Constitution.

75.10. The synod has taken the decision to supersede the elected body and consequently, an administrative committee was appointed by the moderator under the powers given to the moderator by the Synod, by his proceedings, dated 31.05.2017.

76. The present writ petitions relate to the election for Diocese and consequential directions and actions of the elected body belonging to the Tirunelveli Diocese and the TDTA. While a Bishop, who is a senior member of the Christian clergy, usually in charge of a diocese and empowered to confer holy orders and while the Diocese, which is a district under the pastoral care of a Bishop in the Christian Church and when the Bishop of the Diocese shall be the ex-officio President of the Diocesan Council and when every diocesan council has the power to make rules and pass resolutions and take execution action for the good governance of the administration of the diocese, a church under the jurisdiction of the Bishop, and the http://www.judis.nic.in 67/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch Synod being highest representative body of the Church of South India, whether it is the decision of the diocesan council, in the absence of Bishop, or the decision of the Synod, which is having high power in the administration of the Diocese, is the issue to be decided herein.

77. Since the matter revolves around the powers of the Bishop, Synod and Diocese, a cursory look at some of the related meanings to the issue would throw some light, as under:

The Council has the right to an effective voice in the appointment of its Bishop and the right to make regulations with regard to the acceptance of candidates for http://www.judis.nic.in 68/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch ordination to the Ministry, with regard to pastorates, and with regard to the discipline of the Church, subject to the provisions of this Constitution on these topics. It has the duty of fostering the development of the evangelistic, pastoral, educational and other work of the Church in the diocese.

78. An argument was advanced by the learned Counsel for the TDTA that when the Companies Act specifically provides for certain redressal mechanism, Mr.P.Pushparaj, as the petitioner in W.P(MD)No.17952 of 2017, cannot file the present writ petition by knocking the doors of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and hence, the writ petition is not maintainable.

79. At this juncture, it is useful to refer to the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:

79.2. In Binny Ltd., v. V.Sadasivan reported in (2005) 6 Supreme Court Cases 657, at paragraph Nos.9 to 11 and 16, it was held as follows:

10. The Writ of Mandamus lies to secure the performance of a public or a statutory duty. The prerogative remedy of mandamus has long provided the normal means of enforcing the performance of public duties by public authorities. Originally, the writ of mandamus was merely an administrative order from the sovereign to subordinates. In England, in early times, it was made generally available through the Court of King's Bench, when the Central Government had little administrative machinery of its own. Early decisions show that there was free use of the writ for the enforcement of public duties of all kinds, for instance against inferior tribunals which refused to exercise their jurisdiction or against http://www.judis.nic.in 72/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch municipal corporation which did not duly hold elections, meetings, and so forth. In modern times, the mandamus is used to enforce statutory duties of public authorities. The courts always retained the discretion to withhold the remedy where it would not be in the interest of justice to grant it. It is also to be noticed that the statutory duty imposed on the public authorities may not be of discretionary character. A distinction had always been drawn between the public duties enforceable by mandamus that are statutory and duties arising merely from contract. Contractual duties are enforceable as matters of private law by ordinary contractual remedies such as damages, injunction, specific performance and declaration. In the Administrative Law (Ninth Edition) by Sir William Wade and Christopher Forsyth, (Oxford University Press) at page 621, the following opinion is expressed:

11. On the aspect of High Courts exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in contractual matters, the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Kerala and others v. M.K.Jose reported in (2015) 9 Supreme Court Cases 433, after considering a plethora of decisions, at paragraphs 13 to 21 held as follows:

Such seriously disputed questions or rival claims of the parties with regard to breach of contract are to be investigated and determined on the basis of evidence which may be led by the parties in a properly instituted civil suit rather than by a court exercising prerogative of issuing writs.

15. In National Highways Authority of India v. Ganga Enterprises reported in (2003) 7 SCC 410, the respondent therein had filed a writ petition before the High Court for refund of the amount. The High Court posed two questions, http://www.judis.nic.in 75/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch namely, (a) whether the forfeiture of security deposit is without authority of law and without any binding contract between the parties and also contrary to Section 5 of the Contract Act; and (b) whether the writ petition is maintainable in a claim arising out of breach of contract. While dealing with the said issue, this Court opined that:-

Union of India reported in (1986) 3 SCC 247. These, however, are cases where the writ court was enforcing a statutory right or duty. These cases do not lay down that a writ court can interfere in a matter of contract only. Thus on the ground of maintainability the petition should have been dismissed.

http://www.judis.nic.in 76/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch

16. Having referred to the aforesaid decisions, it is obligatory on our part to refer to two other authorities of this Court where it has been opined that under what circumstances a disputed question of fact can be gone into. In Gunwant Kaur v. Municipal Committee, Bhatinda reported in (1969) 3 SCC 769, it has been held thus:-

In a petition under Article 226 the High Court has jurisdiction to try issues both of fact and law.

Exercise of the jurisdiction is, it is true, discretionary, but the discretion must be exercised on sound judicial principles. When the petition raises questions of fact of a complex nature, which may for their determination require oral evidence to be taken, and on that account the High Court is of the view that the dispute may not appropriately be tried in a writ petition, the High Court may decline to try a petition. Rejection of a petition in limine will normally be justified, where the High Court is of the view that the petition is frivolous or because of the nature of the claim made dispute sought to be http://www.judis.nic.in 77/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch agitated, or that the petition against the party against whom relief is claimed is not maintainable or that the dispute raised thereby is such that it would be inappropriate to try it in the writ jurisdiction, or for analogous reasons.” 79.3. In Sarvepalli Ramaiah (D) through LRs and others v. District Collector, Chittor District and others reported in (2019) 4 Supreme Court Cases 500, it was held as follows:

80. At the same time, having regard to the admitted fact that the Diocese is running hundreds of educational institutions, hospitals and orphanages which discharge public functions and the prayer sought for is only to protect such public functions by the institutions of the Diocese, the writ petition is maintainable. The same is fortified in the judgement reported (2016) 1 CTC 240 (Dr. Jenat Jayapaul v SRM University and Ors), wherein, at paragraph 15, it has been held as follows:-

In this regard, it is further submitted that it is neither desirable nor possible for the Registrar to sit in judgment to ascertain the rightful claims of the director in case of a dispute and it is for the parties concerned to settle their dispute by approaching appropriate forum. The documents filed on the e-record on the first respondent http://www.judis.nic.in 81/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch are taken on record without prejudice to the rights of the parties to settle their dispute in the Court of Competent Authority.

16. It is humbly submitted that in the light of the conflicting claims made with regard to the appointment and cessation by the rival groups and in the light of the interim stay granted by the Hon’ble High Court, the 1st respondent has marked the company as having management dispute pending disposal of the present writ petition. In view of the said marking, the documents to be filed in respect of the said company are not approved and remain in Registry as ‘work in progress’ till it is de-marked by the Registrar.” The above narration in the counter affidavit makes it crystal clear that the documents filed on the e-record of the first respondent/company are taken on record without prejudice to the rights of the parties and the same are not approved, but remain in the Registry of the first respondent as ‘work in progress’. Hence, the names of the Directors, who ceased to be the Directors of the said company with effect from 11.07.2017 as per e-form, were not approved, but kept in abeyance pending disposal of the writ petition filed by the first respondent.

81. In such view of the matter, the allegation raised by the petitioner - P.Pushparaj that the form was accepted by the first respondent/ Registrar of Companies and effected changes in respect of TDTA / R-3, is denied and thereby invoking the provisions of Companies Act will not arise for consideration, at this stage.

http://www.judis.nic.in 82/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch

82. Further, a writ of Mandamus could be issued to an official or a society to compel him to carry out the terms of the statute under or by which the society is constituted or governed to carry out duties cast upon it by a statute. The form of the body concerned is not very much relevant. What is relevant is the nature of the duty imposed on the body. No matter by what means the duty is imposed. If a positive obligation exists, Mandamus cannot be denied.

83. No doubt, it is the case of all parties that the Diocese is running several educational institutions, hospitals, etc. The aided institutions are also discharging public functions. They are subject to the rules and regulations. Their activities are closely supervised by the authorities. Employment in such institutions is, therefore, not devoid of any public character. Because of all these, this Court is of the opinion that the service conditions of the academic staff are not purely of a private character, but it has super added protection by decisions creating a legal right and duty relationship between the staff and the management. If such relationship is in existence, a mandamus cannot be refused to the aggrieved party. Also, Article 226(1) of the Constitution of India, empowers this Court to issue directions, orders or writs to 'any person or authority'.

84. That apart, the issue involved is not with regard to the conduct of election, but with regard to the violation of the Constitution of the Diocese, after the election http://www.judis.nic.in 83/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch results were published i.e., on 23.04.2017. Hence, the writ petition filed is maintainable and the arguments advanced to the effect that further action has to be taken only under the Companies Act , are liable to be rejected.

85. A plea was raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 16 and 17 in W.P(MD)No.21134 of 2017 that in the order, dated 21.08.2018 passed by this Court in CRP (MD) No.970 of 2017, it has been held that the proceedings of the Synod is unlawful.

86. It is to be noted that in the said Civil Revision Petition, the challenge was to the manner, in which, the final disposal of the suit in O.S.No.128 of 2011 was made and the authority of the CSI Synod was not at all the subject matter. Therefore, the observations made by this Court on the points not pertaining to issue raised herein, have to be considered as 'obiter dictum'. Hence, the order passed in the Civil Revision Petition, has to be considered otherwise.

87. Further, an argument was advanced by the learned Counsel for the respondents 16 and 17 in W.P(MD)No.21134 of 2017 placing reliance on the decision reported in 2009 (2) CTC 631 ( M.Issac v. The Church of South India , by its Moderator and Others) that CSI Synod has no authority to interfere with the internal management of the Tirunelveli Diocese.

88. The contention so raised cannot be countenanced by this Court. The issue dealt with in the decision referred to above , pertains to maintainability of a Civil Suit http://www.judis.nic.in 84/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch by CSI Synod in Chennai, (election dispute in the Diocese) and while considering the same, the learned Judge made an observation that CSI Synod has no power to interfere with the election for the Diocese and that election has to be conducted as per the Constitution of the Diocese. The said observation cannot be stretched by the respondents to contend that CSI Synod has no power to pass the proceedings dated 31.05.2017.

89. It is also contended by the learned counsel for respondents 16 and 17 in W.P(MD)No.21134 of 2017 that CSI Synod has sought to set-aside the court- monitored election. However, this Court is of the view that the proceedings of the CSI Synod, dated 31.05.2017 is not regarding the elections. In fact, CSI Synod has accepted the elections. Now, the question is regarding the conduct of the elected committee, after the election on 23.04.2017. In this context, it is to be pointed out that the Division Bench of this Court, in the decision reported in 2009 (8) MLJ 548 (supra) has held that the Synod is the supreme governing body and final authority in the matters pertaining to the Church; it is empowered to take executive action as may be necessary from time to time for the general management and good governance of the Church and of the property and affairs thereof; it is also empowered under Rule 15(a) of Chapter IX of the CDT to call for the particulars relating to the administration and financial management of a diocese from the Bishop whenever required, and if, at any time, it is convinced that the situation of the administration and financial management in a particular diocese needs assistance of http://www.judis.nic.in 85/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch the Synod, the Working Committee shall without delay take appropriate action in consultation with the Executive Committee. Moreover, the said decision of the Division Bench of this Court is final, directly on the issue and the same is binding upon all parties. There is no iota of pleading or submission made by the learned counsel for the TDTA or respondents 16 and 17 to overcome the same.

90. The only contention raised by the learned Counsel for the TDTA is that the proceedings of the CSI Synod cannot supersede the elected body and the procedure contemplated under the Companies Act is required to be followed for removal of the office bearers of TDTA. It is to be noted that as per Article 4 of Articles of Association of TDTA, the Bishop of the Diocese shall be the first member and Article 6 (e) stipulates that a member of TDTA will cease to be a member of the Association, on his ceasing to be a member of the Executive Committee of the Diocesan Council. It is also borne out from the records produced by both sides that CSI Synod can supersede the elected committee of Diocese. Whenever situation warrants, Synod, which is the Apex Body, in exercise of its power, can make rules and pass resolution and take executive action, as may be necessary for the common interest, general management and good governance of the Church and of the property and affairs thereof. However, in the present case at hand, within a short span of time from which the election results were declared, the allegations with regard to misappropriation of funds, etc., have been made against the newly elected members. Similarly, counter allegations have been made against the Bishop. In the considered http://www.judis.nic.in 86/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch opinion of this Court, the disputed questions of fact cannot be gone into by this Court in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, this Court refrains from interpreting the factual aspects as projected by either side.

91. According to the learned counsel for the TDTA, firstly, the decision of the CSI Synod dated 30.05.2017 had not been communicated to them or its committee of Management. Secondly, since the TDTA is a Company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 and the members have elected the committee of Management of the TDTA, they can be removed only as per Section 169 of the Companies Act, 2013. Thirdly, the decision of the Synod's Executive Committee ignored the election that had concluded on 23.04.2017, in and by which, the new office bearers had taken charge. Fourthly, Chapter XI Rule 15 of the CSI Constitution recognises that the CSI Synod shall leave the Diocesan Council to deal with the internal affairs of the Diocese and hence, CSI Synod is not vested with any such power to interfere with the internal affairs of Thirunelveli Diocese. Fifthly, the affairs of TDTA are governed by its Articles of Association that empowers the Committee to manage the same and as per Article 18 of the Articles of Association, the Committee of Management is entitled to authorise such persons, it deems fit to operate the bank accounts and other financial transactions of TDTA and therefore, the Synod Executive Committee has no power to administer the TDTA by superseding the Board/Committee of Management of TDTA and empowering the petitioner - R.Jayakumar Thomas Jayaraj as Financial Administrator. http://www.judis.nic.in 87/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch

92. Though many Rules have been extracted hereinbefore, Chapter IX, Rule 15 (c) of the CSI Constitution is more significant and it reads thus:

Further, Rules 13 and 14 of Chapter IX of the CSI Constitution read thus:-

93. A bare reading of Rules 13, 14 (Part 1) and Rule 15 (c) of Chapter IX of the CSI Constitution would disclose that: (i) CSI Synod is empowered to take action in case of constitutional failure in the Diocese; (ii) Synod is the final authority in all matters pertaining to Church; and (iii) Synod has power to make rules and pass http://www.judis.nic.in 88/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch resolutions and take executive action for the good administration of the Church. Further, it blatantly discloses that a surcharged situation occurred in the Diocese, in violation of Diocesan's Constitution. Therefore, CSI Synod which is clothed with powers in respect of all matters pertaining to church, interfered and superseded the Executive Committee of the diocese, by its proceedings dated 30.05.2017 and 31.05.2017. It is in the Constitution that the Synod shall deal with matters of common interest and being visible symbol of unity, dealt with the matter. Ultimately, this Court is of the view that what the bye-laws seek to do is to put a check and balance which are in consonance with the constitution. Thus, this Court finds absolutely no infirmity in passing the proceedings, dated 30.05.2017 and 31.05.2017 by the CSI Synod.

94. The power of the CSI synod is upheld by the well celebrated decision of this Court in the judgment reported in 2009 (8) MLJ 548 (Thoothukudi Nazareth Diocese, Rep. by its Treasurer, Caldwell Higher Secondary School Campus, Beach Road, Thoothukudi and another v. Church of South India, Rep. by its General Secretary, CSI Centre, Chennai and another).

95. No doubt, the newly elected members to the Diocese of Tirunelveli and Tinnevelly Diocesan Trust Association as well as the Financial Administrator appointed by the CSI Synod by virtue of proceedings dated 31.05.2017 are claiming themselves to be having absolute powers on the administration and management of the institutions run by the Diocese, which, admittedly, led to the present litigation. http://www.judis.nic.in 89/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch

96. At this juncture, it is the stand of the Bishop – the 14th respondent in W.P(MD)No.21134 of 2017 that CSI Synod, by the proceedings dated 30.05.2017 took a decision to supersede the elected body headed by respondents 16 and 17 in their capacity as Secretary and Treasurer in the following circumstances:

97. Materials available on record would further disclose that there was a complaint dated 02.06.2017 sent by the Bishop to the CSI synod and therefore, in order to bring peace, there held a meeting on 23.06.2017, however, the respondents 16 and 17 circulated a letter wherein they declared that the members of the Diocese should not attend such meeting. Further, by another letter, dated 19.10.2017 they stated that Tirunelveli Diocese was no more a constituent body of CSI Synod. All the above continuing acts and deeds of respondents 16 and 17 are borne out from records and clearly disclose that they had not followed the Constitution of diocese. http://www.judis.nic.in 90/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch

98. Be that as it may, the present litigation is nothing but a sheer challenge made to the object with which the institutions, both educational and health care, being run by the Diocese of Tirunelveli and administered by Tinnevelly Diocesan Trust Association.

99. In the considered opinion of this Court, “Paramount, it is, the noble cause than any other. Because of the litigative battle from the civil Court till this Court as well as the Honourable Supreme Court, all the functions of the institutions run by the Diocese are paralysed.” In order to resolve amicably the same, this Court took pains to settle the dispute amongst the parties. Accordingly, on 14.06.2019, this Court has passed the following order:

The CSI Synod is the Supreme Body, which regulates the administration, financial management and good governance of the Diocese.

2.1 Tirunelveli Diocesan Trust Association (TDTA), which is an integral part of the Diocese, is functioning to aid and further the work of CSI Synod in the Diocese of Tirunelveli and to manage the institutions, properties and income of the Diocese.

2.2 The Diocese is running more than 325 Educational http://www.judis.nic.in 91/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch Institutions including large number of Government Aided Colleges, higher secondary schools, teacher training institutions, colleges, besides health care institutions, throughout the Tirunelveli District.

2.3 When the things stood thus, a civil suit in O.S.No.128 of 2011 on the file of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli, was filed, with regard to the election for the post of Executive Council of the Diocese. In the suit, various Advocate Commissioners were appointed by the Subordinate Court and the final phase of the election was concluded in the year 2013 and the Executive Council took charge from March 2013.

2.4 However, C.R.P(MD)No.408 of 2017 was filed seeking to conduct the fourth phase of the election afresh and this Court, vide order dated 24.03.2017, while disposing of the said civil revision petition, ordered to conduct the fourth phase of election afresh.

2.5 As regards the post of Treasurer, it was specifically ordered that Church Committee to be constituted by the Bishop, Tirunelveli Diocese and the Committee shall give proposals to the Advocate Commissioner and specific regulation of the Constitution of Diocese has to be followed. Subsequently, elections were conducted and the Advocate Commissioner has filed his report before the Additional Subordinate Court, Tirunelveli, who has not passed any order on the Commissioner's report.

2.6 It is alleged that during April 2017, a group of persons under the guidance of one Vedanayagam declared themselves to have been elected and they occupied the office of the Tirunelveli Diocese and also declared one Devadoss Gnanaraj as Treasurer. Thereafter, they indulged in appointments in the institutions and effected transfers, which resulted in dissolving the alleged elected committee, by the CSI Synod, by proceedings dated 30.05.2017 and 31.05.2017. http://www.judis.nic.in 92/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch Further, the CSI Synod appointed an independent Administrative Committee. As such, the Diocese and all its institutions are coming under the management of the Administrative Committee appointed by CSI Synod.

2.7 At this juncture, the Administrative Committee appointed by CSI Synod and the newly elected Committee exercised their powers in respect of the educational and health care institutions and thereby, the total administration and management of all the institutions coming under the Diocese of Tirunelveli came to be stalled and the respective parties have come to this Court seeking various reliefs as tabulated hereunder:

3.This Court heard the submissions of all the parties in detail and reserved the matters on 21.12.2018, for orders.

4.Thereafter, these writ petitions are listed today “for certain clarifications”. During the course of submissions by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, this Court opined that the disputes between the parties can be resolved among themselves and a settlement may be arrived at by each of the parties in respect of various institutions more particularly, attached with the CSI.

5.The learned counsel appearing for the respective parties have graciously agreed upon the opinion expressed by this Court. They submitted that the parties would go for settlement talk and the outcome of the same would be placed before this Court within a week's time.

6.In view of the same, these matters stand adjourned to 21.06.2019.” http://www.judis.nic.in 93/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch

100. Thereafter, the matters have been listed on some occasions to mediate the parties to arrive at an amicable settlement in the interest of the institutions run by the Diocese.

101. This Court has also persuaded the parties as to the need of effective administration and full-fledged management of the institutions not only in the interest of the institutions, but also to upkeep the domain of the Diocese of Tirunelveli. It throws much light on the other side of the parties and therefore, this Court, in a bid to encourage the said move on behalf of the parties, thought it appropriate to acknowledge the same. However, the conciliation efforts mooted out by this Court would not bring appeasement among the parties. At the same time, both the counsels, in consultation with their respective parties, mutually agreed to have an Administrator to supervise the management of the Diocesan Council/Executive Committee in all the aspects.

102. Again, on 11.07.2019, when the matters were listed, the respective learned Counsel for the parties made certain submissions as to the present scenario that is prevailing in the Diocese of Tirunelveli by drawing the attention of this Court to the paper publications in various Tamil Dailies.

103. Mr.J.Bharathan, learned Counsel for the 15th respondent/TDTA submitted that the Mambazham Festival being conducted from 09.07.2019 to 11.07.2019, in which, an attempt was made to have an amicable settlement among the parties and http://www.judis.nic.in 94/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch the 14th respondent/Bishop also participated in the same and he was received with warm-welcome and treated respectfully by the representatives of the elected body and hence, there is some more improvement taken place in the process of amicable settlement.

104. Mr.Karthick Seshadri, learned Counsel submitted that the elected body would also recognise the Bishop and the election of the elected body to the Diocesan Council has already been affirmed by this Court, vide order dated 30.11.2017 and accordingly, all the proceedings were closed as infructuous. Therefore, there could be no quarrel over the manner in which the Diocesan Council has been elected in accordance with law.

105. Per contra, Mr.S.Thangasivan, learned Counsel appearing for the 14th respondent/the Bishop contended that as suggested, the Bishop had participated in the Mambazham Festival, however, due respect was not given by the so-called newly elected members of the Diocesan Council and that the wife of the Bishop was also insulted and a complaint to that effect has also been lodged before the Palayamkottai Police Station vide Na.Ka.No.252/FC/AC Palai L&O/Tin C/2019, dated 09.07.2019. Despite the undertaking given before the police authorities, nothing moved amicably and the so-called newly elected members acted against the interest of the settlement moves as advertised in Tamil Dailies, viz., Dinakaran on 08.07.2019, 09.07.2019 and 10.07.2019; Dinathanthi on 08.07.2019 and 09.07.2019 and Dinamalar on http://www.judis.nic.in 95/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch 09.07.2019. The Constitution of Diocese of Tirunelveli as well as CSI Synod stipulated the procedure for appointment of Treasurer, however, the same has been given a clear go-by the newly elected members and Rule 15(c) was also violated and hence, the Constitutional break down was apparent. The paper publications made in various vernacular Tamil Dailies would bring damage to the Constitution itself. Though this Court granted an order of interim stay as well as interim injunction vide order dated 21.09.2017, passed in W.P(MD)No.17952 of 2017, and thereby, restrained the second respondent in W.P(MD)No.17952 of 2017, namely, R.Devadoss Gnanaraj, to act as Treasurer of TDTA, the same was not adhered to and they committed a wilful conduct by unauthorised operation of bank accounts and funds etc. and thereby, caused the allegation of misappropriating the funds of the institutions. Moreover, the proposed opening of a new building for TDTA was stalled in that process.

106.Controverting the same, Mr.Lakshmi Narayanan, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is also causing damage to the smooth functioning of the elected body. He also submitted that an Administrator be appointed for a period as may be fixed by this Court, so as to find out the truthfulness of the allegations made herein, which has also been agreed by all the parties.

107. It is undisputed fact that the election of the newly elected members to the Diocesan Council and Tinnevelly Diocesan Trust Association is not yet put to challenge before the competent civil Court and so also, the proceedings of the CSI Synod, dated 31.05.2017 in accordance with law. What has been impugned in all http://www.judis.nic.in 96/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch these writ petitions, is to the simultaneous orders of appointments and transfers made by the newly elected members as well as the CSI Synod.

108. With the above backdrop, it would be more relevant to once again reiterate hereunder the history, vision and mission of Tirunelveli Diocese, to remind the parties as to the impact over the noble object of the institutions:

http://www.judis.nic.in 98/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch Apart from spiritual work, Tirunelveli Diocese has been striving hard to address to the economic, educational and social needs of the poor, the aged, the mentally retarded, the visually disabled etc. The fruits of this Diocese are in every nook and corner of globe bearing witness to the Good Shepherd.

Vision Statement:

109. When such being the noble object of the Diocese of Tirunelveli, but for the litigative battle, the aim and goal of the institutions should not be allowed to be defeated. One thing is clear that the utmost interest of the institutions has been pushed back behind the rival claims over the administration and management of the Diocese of Tirunelveli as well as TDTA. This Court, while entertaining the present writ petitions, could not be a mere spectator to the happenings just opposite to the object with which the institutions have been originated and issue mere directions. At the present stage as projected by either side, the need of the hour is to oxygenate the total administration and management of the institutions.

110. Moreover, the CSI Synod, vide proceedings dated 31.05.2017, while appointing the Administrative Committee to administer the Diocese of Tirunelveli and TDTA, observed as follows:

111. The very purport of the above said proceedings of the CSI Synod dated 31.05.2017, is to conduct the general election for the remaining triennium 2017-2020, which, in the considered opinion of this Court, cannot be permissible as per CSI Rules, according to which, the CSI Synod has no role to play in conducting the election to the Diocesan Council as it purely falls within the internal administration of Tirunelveli Diocese. Further, the challenge made to the judgment dated 30.11.2017 passed in the civil suit in O.S.No. 128 of 2011, by filing C.R.P (MD) (PD) No.970 of 2018 before this Court, ended in dismissal, vide order dated 21.08.2018 and thus, the election of the newly elected Diocesan Council has been affirmed by this Court. If for http://www.judis.nic.in 101/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch any reason, the newly elected Diocesan Council is to be removed, that can be done only in accordance with law by invoking the jurisdiction of competent Civil Court and not otherwise.

112. Thus, this Court holds that the newly elected Diocesan Council as well as the Bishop (Dr.J.J.Christdoss) shall continue to do their functions as per the Constitution of Diocese of Tirunelveli and also as per the relevant provisions of the Constitution of CSI, however, taking into consideration the fact that there are allegations made with regard to the alleged misappropriation of funds on taking over the charge after 23.04.2017, which admittedly led to the proceedings dated 30.05.2017 passed by the CSI Synod for appointing an Administrative Committee to administer the Diocesan Council and TDTA, the same shall be subjected to scrutiny by independent personnel, like, Administrators, as mutually agreed by both the parties, to look into such allegations/counter allegations made by the respective parties against one another. No doubt, the election of the newly elected Diocesan Council cannot be impugned in the writ proceedings by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Similarly, the legality of the proceedings of the CSI Synod, dated 30.05.2017, has not been challenged herein and hence, in order to give a quietus to the issue on hand, this Court is inclined to dispose of all the writ petitions in the following manner. http://www.judis.nic.in 102/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch CONCLUSION:

http://www.judis.nic.in 103/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch

(c) The Executive Committee of the Diocesan Council elected on 23.04.2017, with the Bishop (Dr.J.J.Christdoss)as its Chairman shall henceforth function, under the guidance, supervision and control of the Administrators until further orders;

(d) The elected Members of the Executive Committee of Diocesan Council, shall hand over the relevant records/files to the Administrators within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;

(e) The Bishop/Chairman/concerned parties shall hand over all the records relating to the transfers, postings and appointments made on and from 23.04.2017, to the Administrators. The Administrators shall scrutinise these records, hear the parties affected by such transfers, postings and appointments and pass appropriate orders, within six weeks from the date of receipt of the records. Those orders shall be binding on (i) the Bishop/Chairman; (ii) the Diocesan Council and its Executive Committee; and

(iii) persons who are subjected to such transfers and postings;

(f) Since this Court granted an order of interim stay as well as interim injunction vide order dated 21.09.2017, passed in W.P(MD)No.17952 of 2017, and thereby, restrained the second respondent in W.P(MD)No.17952 of 2017, namely, R.Devadoss Gnanaraj, to act as Treasurer of TDTA, the first respondent in W.P(MD)No.17952 of 2017, namely, the Registrar of Companies removed the name of the Treasurer from the directorship from 23.09.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in 104/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch and thus, the Administrators shall consider the appointment made to the post of Treasurer of TDTA and if they find any irregularity in such appointment, the same shall be looked into by them as it is not an elected post and necessary/appropriate orders shall be passed in that regard, which shall be binding on all, after affording due opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned and taking into consideration the fact that the Church Committee constituted by the Bishop alone shall give proposal for the post of Treasurer. The existing arrangement with regard to the financial aspect, shall go on and the same shall be countersigned/approved by the Administrators;

(g) All meetings of the Executive Committee shall be held henceforth, under the supervision and control of the Administrators. If there is any conflict of opinion between the Bishop/Chairman on the one hand and the elected Diocesan Council/Executive Committee on the other hand, the Administrators shall find out what is good for the institution and take appropriate decision. The decision of the Administrators shall be final and binding on the Executive Committee of the Diocesan Council and the Bishop/President;

(h) All transfers, postings and appointments to all educational and other institutions, which are considered as necessary by the Bishop/Chairman and/or by the Executive Committee of Diocesan Council, shall be placed in a meeting of the Executive Committee, convened under the supervision of the Administrators. If there is unanimity of opinion among the elected members and the President, those transfers, postings and appointments shall take http://www.judis.nic.in 105/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch place. If there is divergence of opinion, the same shall be resolved by the Administrators and the decision of the Administrators shall be final.

(i) Since some of the writ petitions have been filed challenging the legality of the postings, transfers and appointments made by the newly elected Diocesan Council as well as by the Administrative Committee appointed by CSI Synod, the petitioners concerned shall submit fresh representation to the Administrators ventilating their grievances with regard to such postings/transfers/appointments, as the case may be, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of the same, the Administrators shall consider the claim of the respective parties and pass necessary/appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible;

(j) The Administrators shall be present in all the meetings of the Executive Committee. All decisions taken in the said meetings without any conflict between the Bishop/Chairman on the one hand and the elected Members on the other hand, shall stand approved. But, if there is conflict of opinion between the Bishop/Chairman on the one hand and the elected Members on the other hand, then, the Administrators shall take a decision which shall be binding upon the Executive Committee of the Diocesan Council;

(k) Since the flow of funds and control over properties whose values keep mounting, have been the root cause for all the problems faced by the institutions and also since the Administrators may find it extremely difficult to http://www.judis.nic.in 106/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch look after even the distribution of the monthly salaries to the staff of all the institutions, this Court is of the view that the salaries of the teaching and non- teaching staff of the educational institutions run by Diocese of Tirunelveli and TDTA, with the grant-in-aid received from the State Government, shall be arranged to be paid directly to the employees through the Correspondents as countersigned by any one of the Administrators, who shall take necessary steps to henceforth make direct payment to the staff through electronic clearing system or other modes as prevalent in Government educational institutions;

(l) Insofar as the issue relating to the financial management as well as collection of donations is concerned, the day-to-day affairs relating to the financial position shall be placed before the Administrators periodically and the accounts shall be maintained properly under the supervision of the Administrators;

(m)Insofar as the landed properties of the Diocese of Tirunelveli are concerned, the details/particulars of such properties shall also be placed before the Administrators forthwith and the accounts relating to the income derived therein shall be audited properly by the Auditor to be appointed by the Administrators;

http://www.judis.nic.in 107/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch

(n) The Administrators shall communicate this order to the respective banks (respondents 8 to 13) with regard to their powers in respect of financial transactions as entrusted by this Court.

(o) The Administrators shall be paid a honorarium of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Fifty Thousand only) each per month, apart from reimbursement of all the expenses including travelling allowance incurred by them towards the discharge of their duties. In case, the Administrators appoint any Retired District Judge for their assistance, he shall be paid a honorarium of Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand only) per month;

(p) A proper place with all infrastructures including transport facilities, be arranged for functioning the Administrators forthwith by the Executive Committee of the Diocesan Council;

(q) It will also be open to the Administrators to engage the services of one or two secretarial staff, to assist them. The remuneration of such staff shall be fixed by them and the same shall also be paid by the institution;

(r) All routine and regular payments, in respect of which there is a controversy, shall be placed before the Administrators for their decision and approval. If the Administrators approve an expenditure/payment, the President as well as the Treasurer shall sign the cheques for effecting such payments; http://www.judis.nic.in 108/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch

(s) To avoid any controversy and to clear all doubts regarding the role of the Administrators, this Court clarifies that the Administrators are appointed to look after all the financial aspects as well as appointments, postings, transfers, etc., with powers to step in, whenever there is a need for it;

(t) The arrangement made as above, shall continue for a period of one year and the Administrators shall file the periodical report once in three months for passing further orders;

(u) The Administrators are at liberty to seek appropriate directions from this Court as and when necessary with regard to their administration and security and they are at liberty to do their functions as Administrators with the powers entrusted by this Court.

(v) Any clarifications by any of the parties pursuant to this order, be placed before this Court for necessary orders/directions;

(w)Each and every members connected to the Diocesan Council/Executive Committee/Synod should extend their fullest co-operation to the Administrators, failing which, the same will be viewed seriously; and

(x) No Courts, pursuant to this order, shall entertain any petition(s) and such petition(s) shall be placed before this Court for consideration. http://www.judis.nic.in 109/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch DISPOSAL:

ii. W.P(MD)No.17952 of 2017 is closed in terms of the directions/findings given at paragraph 114(f) and also in view of the disposal of W.P(MD)No.21134 of 2017;

iii. W.P(MD)Nos.17517 to 17524, 13443, 22667 to 22670, 22813 to 22816, 22446, 20118, 20774, 15916, 14392, 14740, 14741, 13729, 13747 to 13749 and 13873 of 2017 are disposed of, in terms of the directions/findings given by this Court in Clauses (h) and (i) of paragraph 114;

iv. W.P(MD)No.24066 of 2017 is closed, as the relief sought for by the petitioner herein has become infructuous.

v. Consequently, all the connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. vi. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

http://www.judis.nic.in 110/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch

116. Since this Court is inclined to monitor the issue involved in these writ petitions, post the matters on 30.09.2019, for reporting compliance and for filing the initial report by the Administrators before this Court.

Note: (i) Registry is directed to henceforth communicate this order to the Subordinate Courts concerned; and

(ii) Issue Order Copy on 07.08.2019.

To Administrators:

3.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, St.Thomas Road, Maharaja Nagar, Thirunelveli-627 011.

4.The Commissioner of Police, Thirunelveli City, Thirunelveli.

5.The Superintendent of Police, South-High Ground Road, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District -627 002.

http://www.judis.nic.in 111/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch R.MAHADEVAN, J.

6.The Director, Directorate of Collegiate Education, 9th Floor, E.V.K.Sampath Buildings, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 006.

7.The Director, Directorate of School Education, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 006.

8.The Chief Educational Officer, Thirunelveli District, Thirunelveli.

PRE-DELIVERY COMMON ORDER MADE IN W.P.[MD] Nos.21134, 17952, 22667 to 22670, 17517 to 17524, 13443, 22446, 24066,14740, 14741, 13729, 13747, 13748, 13749, 13873, 15916, 20118, 22813 to 22816, 14392 and 20774 of 2017 05.08.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in 112/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch W.P(MD)Nos.21134, 17952, 22667 to 22670, 17517 to 17524, 13443, 22446, 24066, 14740, 14741, 13729, 13747, 13748, 13749, 13873, 15916, 20118, 22813 to 22816 14392 and 20774 of 2017 R.MAHADEVAN, J.

The aforesaid writ petitions are listed today under the caption “for being mentioned” at the instance of the learned counsel for the 16th respondent.

2. After pronouncement of the order dated 05.08.2019, Mr.Lakshminarayanan, learned counsel representing Mr.T.Mathi, learned counsel for the 16th respondent/Vedhanayagam, referring to paragraph no.106 of the said order, made a submission qua the observations made by this Court on the aspect of mutual agreement among the parties for appointment of the “Administrators”, stating that insofar as the 16th respondent is concerned, he consented only for appointment of an “Observer” for the management and administration of the Diocesan Council of Tirunelveli Diocese as well as TDTA and prayed for some clarification in that regard.

3. Heard the respective learned counsel for the parties on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the 16th respondent/Vedhanayagam.

4. In fact, this Court took much pain to resolve the difference among the parties in an amicable manner, however, it went in vain. During the course of hearing of the matters, several attempts were initiated by this Court with the fullest co-operation of the respective learned counsel for the parties and in the considered http://www.judis.nic.in 113/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch opinion of this Court, all of them had rendered much assistance to this Court to settle the dispute. Such a kind of response from all the parties would enable this Court to see to it that the noble object for which the said institutions are established, is achieved.

5. Now, the learned counsel for the 16th respondent/Vedhanayagam has pointed out that he only agreed for appointment of an “Observer” and not for the “Administrators”. But, Mr.R.Bharanidharan, learned counsel for the SYNOD / petitioner and Mr.Thangasivan, learned counsel for the Bishop/14th respondent jointly submitted that they agreed for the appointment of “Administrators” and on the previous hearing, none opposed for the same.

6. This Court, considering the totality of facts and circumstances obtaining on the date of the order, i.e., 05.08.2019, appointed “Administrators” to guide, supervise and advise the Diocesan Council as well as TDTA, in order to achieve the said noble object. It is made clear that since the meeting held among the parties did not end up in fruition and instead, various allegations were levelled against one another, taking into account the fact that the administration and management of the Diocesan Council as well as TDTA is paralyzed in view of lack of effective administration and allegations/counter allegations with regard to embezzlement of huge funds as well, and that no purpose would be served by appointing a mere “Observer” without any power of control, this Court has appointed the “Administrators” purely in the interests of the institutions.

http://www.judis.nic.in 114/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch

7. The order dated 05.08.2019 stands clarified in the above terms.

16.08.2019 rk Note: Registry is directed to issue fresh order copy to all the parties, after incorporating this order dated 16.08.2019.

http://www.judis.nic.in 115/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch http://www.judis.nic.in 116/112 W.P.No.21134/2017 etc. batch R.MAHADEVAN, J.

rk W.P(MD)Nos.21134, 17952, 22667 to 22670, 17517 to 17524, 13443, 22446, 24066, 14740, 14741, 13729, 13747, 13748, 13749, 13873, 15916, 20118, 22813 to 22816, 14392 and 20774 of 2017 16.08.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in 117/112