Kerala High Court
Eldho P.V. vs Eldho P.V. on 9 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL
TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 20TH MAGHA,1942
WA.No.256 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 17/12/2020 IN WP(C) 11786/2020(W)
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/RESPONDENTS 7 & 8:
1 ELDHO P.V., AGED 50 YEARS
S/O.VARGHESE, PARREKATTIL HOUSE,
PULIYANAM KARA, PULIYANAM P.O.,
PARAKKADAVU VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, PIN-683572.
2 VARGHESE A.P., AGED 52 YEARS
S/O.PAULOSE, PAINADATH AYYAMPILLY HOUSE,
PULIYANAM KARA, KARUKUTTY VILLAGE, KARUKUTTY
P.O., ALUVA TALUK, PIN-683576.
BY ADVS.SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY
SRI.EBIN MATHEW
SRI.P.ROHIT PREMANANDAN SHENOY
RESPONDENT/PETITIONERS 1 TO 4 AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 6:
1 ST.GEORGE TABORE CHURCH
PEECHANIKKADU, PULIYANAM P.O., PIN-683572,
ANGAMALY VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, REPRESENTED BY
ITS TRUSTEE, K.M.ELDHO, AGED 53 YEARS,
S/O.MATHEW, KAIPARAMBATTU HOUSE,
PEECHANIKADU KARA,PULIYANAM P.O., PIN-683572,
ANGAMALY VILLAGE,ALUVA TALUK.
W.A.No.256 of 2021 2
2 FR. T.V.ELDHOSE,AGED 52 YEARS
S/O.T.V.VARGHESE, THELAPPILLY HOUSE,
CHIRANGARA KARA, KORATTY EAST P.O.,
PIN-680308, KIZHAKKUMURI VILLAGE,
CHALAKKUDY TALUK,
THRISSUR DISTRICT.
3 RAJU VARGHESE, AGED 61 YEARS
S/O.VARKEY PILLAI, KAIPPARAMBATT HOUSE,
PEECHANIKADU KARA, PULIYANAM P.O.,
PIN-683572, ANGAMALY VILLAGE,
ALUVA TALUK.
4 M.P.MATHAI, AGED 67 YEARS
S/O.POULOSE, MOOLAN HOUSE,
PEECHANIKADU KARA, PULIYANAM P.O.,
PIN-683572, ANGAMALY VILLAGE,
ALUVA TALUK.
5 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
6 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM,
CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU-682031.
7 THE STATE POLICE CHIEF
POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
8 THE DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE (RURAL)
SH 16, OPP. POWER HOUSE, ALUVA, KERALA-683101.
9 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDANT OF POLICE
POWER HOUSE JUNCTION, SUB JAIL ROAD,
PERIYAR NAGAR, ALUVA, KERALA-683101.
10 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
ANGAMALY POLICE STATION, NATIONAL HIGHWAY 47,
ANGAMALY-683572.
W.A.No.256 of 2021 3
11 K.T.YACOB, AGED 63 YEARS
S/O.TARU, KOORAN THAZATHU VEETTIL,
PUTHAMKUTTY POST, EDALAKKAD, PIN-686693.
R1 TO R4 BY ADV.SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR)
R5 TO R10 BY STATE ATTORNEY SRI.K.V.SOHAN
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.256 of 2021 4
JUDGMENT
Ravikumar, J.
This appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act is
filed against the judgment dated 17.12.2020 in W.P.(C)No.11786 of
2020. The appellants were respondents 7 and 8 in the writ petition.
The writ petition was filed by respondents 1 to 4 herein seeking
issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 6 to
afford adequate and effective police protection to the 2 nd petitoner viz.,
the second respondent herein to conduct religious services in the 1 st
petitioner Church, its cemetery and chapels and petitioners 3 and 4
(respondents 3 and 4 herein) and other parishioners of the 1 st petitioner
Church in participating such religious services without any let,
hindrance or obstruction from respondtns 7 to 9, their men, agents or
followers and anybody claiming under them in the interests of justice.
Relief No.(ii) sought for by them was as follows:-
"(ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction directing the respondents 1 to 6
to act strictly adhering to the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court reported in 2017(3) KLT 261
(SC)=2017(15) SCC 333 and Exhibit P4, ensuring that no
priest or prelate appointed otherwise than in accordance
with Malankara Church Constitution of 1934 conduct
any sacraments including Holy Mass in the 1st petitioner-
church, its chapels, cemetery or the appurtenant buildings
thereto."
2. A bare perusal of the judgment under appeal would
reveal that the learned Single Judge held that the petitioners viz.,
respondents 1 to 4 herein are not entitled to any of the reliefs sought
for in the writ petition and the writ petition was accordingly dismissed.
True that, while dismissing the writ petition it was done without
prejudice to the right of the petitioners/respondents 1 to 4 herein to file
appropriate complaint/representation before the 6th respondent Station
House Officer and other official respondents seeking adequate and
effective police protection. The appellants herein feel aggreived by the
nature of the order though as per the same ultimately the reliefs sought
for by the writ petitioners/respondents 1 to 4 herein were dismissed.
After arguing for some time the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants sought permission to withdraw this writ appeal with liberty to
raise all legally available contentions in case the petitioners in W.P.
(C)No.11786 of 2020 viz., respondents 1 to 4 herein avail the liberty
and come up before this Court with a fresh writ petition. In the light of
the said submission this appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty
to the appellants to raise all legally available contentions in case the
writ petitioners in W.P.(C)No.11786 of 2020 come up before this Court
in another round of litigation availing the liberty granted under the
impugned judgment.
Sd/-
C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Judge
Sd/-
K.HARIPAL
Judge
TKS
