Kerala High Court
Sr. Lucy Kalappura vs State Of Kerala on 22 July, 2021
WP(C) NO. 13764 OF 2020 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JULY 2021 / 31ST ASHADHA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 13764 OF 2020
PETITIONER:
SR. LUCY KALAPPURA
AGED 55 YEARS
D/O. SCARIA KALAPPURACKAL, F. C. CONVENT,
KARAKKAMALA P. O., MANANTHAWADY,
WAYANAD DISTRICT - 670 645.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001.
2 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KERALA
POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695 010.
3 SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
WAYANAD, CIVIL STATION, MADATHUMPADI, KALPETTA,
PIN - 673 122.
4 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
VELLAMUNDA POLICE STATION, SH54, AREEKARA,
VELLAMUNDA,
PIN - 670 731.
5 SR. ANN JOSEPH
SUPERIOR GENERAL, FC CONGREGATION, GENERALATE,
PORTINCULA, ASOKAPURAM, ALUVA P.O., ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 680 101.
6 SR. LIGI MARIA
MOTHER SUPERIOR, F. C. CONVENT, KARAKKAMALA P. O.,
WP(C) NO. 13764 OF 2020 2
WAYANAD DISTRICT - 670 645.
7 FR. NOBLE THOMAS
P.R.O. MANANTHAWADY DIOCESE, BISHOP'S HOUSE, P. B.
NO.1, MANANTHAVADY, PIN - 670 645.
8 FR. STEPHEN KOTTACKAL, VICAR
KARAKKAMALA CHURCH, KARAKKAMALA P.O.,
WAYANAD DISTRICT - 670 645.
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)
SRI.JOHN VARGHESE
SMT.NISHA GEORGE
SRI.A.L.GEORGE
SRI PP THAJUDEEN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 13764 OF 2020 3
JUDGMENT
The petitioner states that she is a Nun and a member of the Franciscan
Clarist Congregation ('FCC' for the sake of brevity). She has filed this Writ
Petition invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following
reliefs:
(i) to issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction commanding and
compelling the respondents 2 to 4 to afford sufficient, effective
and meaningful police protection to the life and property of the
petitioner.
(ii) to issue a writ of prohibition, order or direction restraining the
respondents 5 to 8 from interfering with the peaceful living and
complete freedom inside the convent to access all the common
areas and to be provided with food and water to survive the life of
petitioner in F.C. Convent at Karakkamala in view of the pendency
of O.S.209/2019 before the Munsiff Court, Mananthawady;
(iii) to issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction commanding and
compelling the 3rd respondent to preserve and protect the CCTV
visuals in and around the Vicar's Residence and FC Convent,
Karakkamala starting from at least 45 days prior to 28.05.2020 to
protect from it being tampered or destroyed;
2. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of this petition
are noted herein below:-
The petitioner states that while she was a member of the FCC, in
the exercise of her rights to freedom and expression, she joined in the
protests organised by various organisations to bring to justice Bishop
Franco Mullackal, who was accused of committing serious sexual
offences. Her activities did not augur well with respondents 5 to 7, who
are her superiors. With intent to silence the petitioner, the 5th
respondent initiated proceedings to terminate her which ultimately led to
her dismissal from the congregation. Challenging the procedure and the
finding, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Grievance
Redressal Forum. The appeal was rejected against which the petitioner
preferred a review petition which is pending consideration before His
Holiness, the Pope. The petitioner contends that respondents 5 and 6
committed various acts to tarnish her image and reputation and to drive
her off from the convent. She was denied permission to venture out of
the convent and this led the petitioner to lodge a complaint before the
4th respondent. Ext.P2 crime was registered under Section 342 of the
IPC on 19.08.2019. Later, when the 7th respondent and his associates
spread canards against her, she lodged Ext.P3 complaint based on which
Ext.P4 F.I.R was registered.
3. Petitioner goes on to assert that she published a book
"Karthavinte Namathil" recounting the bitter experiences she faced in her
life. This stirred up quite a controversy and invited the ire of respondents
5 to 7. They intensified the harassment and threats towards the
petitioner. When the petitioner felt that she would be evicted pending
the appeal before the Vatican, she instituted O.S.No. 209/2019 before
the Court of the Munsiff, Manathavady and the learned Munsiff granted
an order of interim injunction restraining the defendants in the suit from
forcefully evicting the petitioner from the plaint schedule property till
01.01.2020. According to the petitioner, the injunction order could not be
extended as the courts were not fully functioning on account of the
restrictions imposed due to the pandemic. The petitioner asserts that the
respondentS 6 to 8 took the assistance of some hooligans to drive the
petitioner away and a horde of people assembled outside the convent
and openly declared that they would do away with the petitioner.
Immediately, the petitioner lodged a complaint before the 4threspondent
based on which Ext.P7 crime was registered. The petitioner contends
that the respondents are acting in clear violation of the fundamental
rights guaranteed to her under the Constitution of India. She contends
that though several complaints were lodged before the 4th respondent,
no effective action was taken. In the said circumstances, she lodged
Ext.P8 complaint before the 3rd respondent and requested that her life
and property be protected. However, no support was extended to her.
The petitioner contends that the harassment against the petitioner
escalated and she was prevented access to the common areas. CCTV
cameras have been installed in various places inside the convent to
monitor her activities. She has been asked to vacate the convent even
during the pendency of the Civil Suit instituted by her.
4. The petitioner further states that on 28.05.2020 she wanted
to meet the 6th respondent. When the 6th respondent did not return
after meeting the Vicar of the church, she went in search. She states
that when she went to the kitchen, she had occasion to witness the 6th
and 7th respondents engaged in sexual acts. When the petitioner
questioned them for indulging in immoral activities in the holy place, she
was allegedly threatened by them. On 02.06.2020, she is stated to have
lodged a complaint before the Station House Officer, Vellamunda Police
Station. According to the petitioner, she requested the police personnel
to conduct a detailed investigation and collect the CCTV visuals. The
Police, however, did not heed her request. The petitioner contends that
the party respondents would endanger her life if necessary directions are
not issued. It is in the above backdrop that she has approached this
Court seeking directions to the Police to afford her adequate protection
to the life and property and for incidental reliefs.
5. In the counter affidavit filed by the 5th respondent, it is
stated that the petitioner joined the FCC on 24.06.1982. She made her
first profession of religious vows in the same congregation on 22.05.1985
and her final profession on 21.05.1991. She was sent for University
studies by the congregation and she passed her B.Sc and B.Ed degrees.
At the time of filing the writ petition, she was working as a teacher in the
Sacred Heart Higher Secondary School, Dwaraka, Wayanad District. A
complaint was received against the petitioner on 03.08.2003 that she
had inflicted physical violence on another sister of the Congregation.
She was transferred from FCC Convent, Kommayad to FCC Convent,
Dwaraka as per the norms. She refused to obey the transfer order. She
refused to obey the canonical norms and the rules of the congregation
and her conduct was unbecoming of a member. She violated the law of
enclosure and travel and even permitted a layperson to stay in the
convent against all norms. There were other serious allegations as well.
Disciplinary action was initiated and a show-cause notice was issued by
the Superior General of the Congregation. Later, on 11.5.2019, after
following the procedure, the General Council held a meeting at the FCC
Generalate, Aluva and a decree of dismissal from the FCC was passed.
After her dismissal from the Congregation, the petitioner has no legal
right to continue in the convent as a nun. However, to rake up
controversy and for the sake of garnering publicity, the petitioner has
been creating issues one after the other to tarnish the image of the
congregation. The allegation that the Sisters of the congregation had
harassed and threatened the petitioner, that after the publication of her
book, she was victimized and harassed etc. are denied by the 5th
respondent. Insofar as the several crimes registered at the instance of
the petitioner is concerned, it is stated that the allegations are frivolous
and have no factual foundation. The fact that the order of injunction was
not extended after 28.01.2020 is also highlighted by the said respondent.
It is further stated that the order of the Council dismissing the petitioner
from the congregation was upheld by the Congregation for the Oriental
Churches. As per the Canon Law, the petitioner is entitled to file an
appeal in the Supreme Tribunal called 'Signatura Apostolica' at the
Vatican against the decision of the Congregation for the Oriental
Churches. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was also rejected. It is
further stated that the allegation that the petitioner was deprived of food
and water in the Convent is untrue. The inmates cook their own food
and the petitioner has been causing disturbances to other inmates. The
5th respondent has vehemently denied the allegations of ill-treatment
said to have been meted out to the petitioner and it was contended that
the writ petition is one without merit and do not warrant any
interference.
6. The respondent Nos. 6 to 8 have filed a counter-affidavit,
more or less reiterating the contentions raised by the 5th respondent.
They have denied the serious allegations of harassment and torture
made by the petitioner on them. It is stated that the allegation in para
12 of the writ petition that the petitioner had occasion to witness the
respondent Nos. 6 and 8 indulging in sexual activities are absolutely
baseless and false. They are on the verge of instituting proceedings to
sue the petitioner for defaming and ridiculing them. It is further
contended that this Court will not be justified in directing the police to
collect evidence in a writ petition seeking police protection. They have
denied that the Sisters of the congregation attempted to endanger the
life of the petitioner. It is further contended that the petitioner had a
monthly salary of more than Rs.60,000/- per mensem and that she has
not been contributing any amount for the running of the convent since
the month of December 2017. It is further stated that the FCC is a
Catholic Religious Congregation and a person who is not a member of
the Congregation cannot be permitted to live in the Convent.
7. I have heard Lucy Kalappura, the petitioner, who appeared
in person, Sri. George Poonthottam, the learned Senior Counsel, who
appeared for the 5th respondent, Sri. George Varghese, the learned
counsel who appeared for the respondent Nos. 6 to 8 and Sri P.P.
Thajudheen, the learned Government Pleader.
8. The petitioner contended that she was working as a school
teacher and she has retired from her service this year. A suit has been
instituted by the petitioner seeking to interdict the respondents from
evicting her, and respondents 6 and 7 have instituted a suit with a prayer
to evict her from the Karakkamala Convent. The 6th respondent has also
instituted another suit seeking to recover the retirement benefits and the
said suit is also pending. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated only
because the petitioner supported the cause of the nuns who were
victimised by Bishop Franco Mulakkal. The petitioner was singled out and
she was discriminated against as she had attempted to air her views in
the exercise of her rights under the Constitution of India. It is contended
that the petitioner is a nun and her status cannot simply be taken away
by the respondents. It was urged that her right to live in the Convent is
intertwined with her status as a nun and therefore, the respondent Nos.
5 to 8 are not justified in insisting that the petitioner should remove
herself from the Convent. Her right to live in the Convent is being
adjudicated by the Civil Court and until the said court takes a decision
one way or the other, the petitioner is entitled to reside and the police
are bound to ensure that her life and property are protected. It is also
contended that she has been defrocked pursuant to proceedings initiated
under the Canon Law and according to the petitioner, the provisions of
the Canon Law is directly in conflict with the law of the land. The
petitioner would contend that the order of dismissal passed against her is
unsustainable under law.
9. Sri. George Poonthottam, the learned senior counsel
appearing for the 5th respondent would refer to the findings of the
General Council in the Decree of Dismissal and it was argued that the
petitioner had repeatedly violated the vows of poverty and obedience
which she professed in the Franciscan Christ Congregation. She has also
violated the proper law of the FCC regarding religious habits and
enclosure. There is also a finding that the petitioner violated the norms
of the Syro-Malabar Church which prohibits the appearance of the
religious in TV shows. According to the learned senior counsel, by
joining a religious congregation of the catholic church, the petitioner is
required to faithfully observe the religious vows made in the FCC. The
petitioner has taken the vows of obedience, chastity and poverty to be
observed as per the proper law of the FCC which include 'The Rule and
Constitution of the FCC' and 'The Way of Life of the FCC'. He contends
that repeated warnings were issued to the petitioner to correct and
mend her ways and it was when all attempts failed that the competent
authority, with the consent of the Council, dismissed the petitioner from
the Congregation. It was contended that the other members of the
convent are living a life of renunciation and detachment from the world
and have been observing the Law regarding enclosure and religious
habits. The petitioner has been swimming against the tide and she has
managed to drastically unsettle the life of the other inmates of the
convent. Reliance is placed on the show cause notice issued to the
petitioner to substantiate that there were serious allegations against the
petitioner which were all found against her. It is submitted by referring
to paragraph No.12 of the writ petition that the petitioner has even
raised sexual allegations against the Mother Superior and the Vicar of the
Church. The learned counsel points out that numerous crimes were
registered at the instance of the petitioner and some of those crimes
have already been referred to as false. The learned senior counsel
would urge that it is beyond comprehension that the other nuns in the
Convent would go to the extent of harassing the petitioner. However,
according to him, if the petitioner continues to reside in the Convent
after her final dismissal from the Congregation, it would only lead to
continuous strife and conflicts.
10. Sri.John Varghese, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent Nos. 6 to 8 supported the arguments of the learned senior
counsel. The learned counsel would contend that baseless and
untenable allegations have been raised against the Mother Superior and
Vicar and even the other inmates of the Convent. The learned counsel
would point out that at the time of filing of the writ petition, the
contention of the petitioner was that she had preferred a review petition
challenging the order passed by the Grievance Redressal Cell at the
Vatican. The learned counsel would refer to Ext.R6(a) and it was
pointed out that the Supremum Tribunal by decree dated 27.05.2021 has
rejected the review petition as well. According to the learned counsel,
the petitioner has also retired from the School where she was working.
After the final order of dismissal, the petitioner has no right to live in the
Convent and her further stay within the FC Convent is clearly unlawful.
It would cause serious disturbance to the other inmates who have taken
the vow of obedience, chastity and poverty.
11. Sri. P.P.Thajudheen, the learned Government Pleader on
instructions submitted that pursuant to the interim order passed by this
Court, the police have been maintaining a beat book and has been
regularly visiting the convent to ensure that law and order is
maintained. It is further submitted that numerous complaints have been
received and crimes have also been registered. The petitioner had
lodged a complaint before the 3rd respondent alleging that the police are
acting hand in glove with the party respondents. The said complaint was
investigated and it was found that there was no merit in the accusations
levelled by the petitioner and Ext.P11 communication was issued to her.
Insofar as her prayer to preserve and protect the CCTV visuals are
concerned, it is contended that investigation is in the domain of the
investigating officer and if the petitioner has any grievance, she is
required to move the learned Magistrate seeking directions instead of
this Court. Reliance is placed on Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. and
Others [2008 (2) SCC 409] and Aleque Padamsee and Others v.
Union of India and Others [2007 (6) SCC 171] and it is argued that
under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., there is an implied power in the
Magistrate to direct the officer in charge of the concerned police station
to hold a proper investigation and take all such steps that may be
necessary for ensuring a proper investigation including monitoring the
same.
12. I have anxiously considered the submissions advanced and
have perused the materials produced by the contesting parties.
13. This writ petition was filed on 08.07.2020 and when this
matter had come up before this Court an order dated 09.07.2020 was
passed directing the 4th respondent to ensure that law and order is
maintained and if necessary, to afford adequate protection to the life and
property of the petitioner from any incursions by the respondent Nos. 5
to 8.
14. At the time of filing of the writ petition, Ext.R5(a) order
passed by the General Council, FCC ordering the dismissal of the
petitioner from the Congregation had been upheld in appeal by the
Congregation of the Oriental Churches. However, the petitioner had a
right to prefer a further appeal in the Segnatura Apostolica at the
Vatican. The said appeal had also been rejected. The petitioner had
then an opportunity to prefer a review petition before the Supreme
Tribunal. From Ext.R6(b), it is evident that the review petition preferred
by the petitioner has also been dismissed. As things stand now, the
petitioner is not a member of the Congregation. This fact however is
disputed by the petitioner.
15. A reading of the writ petition filed by the petitioner would
show that she has raised serious accusations against the inmates of the
convent, the Mother Superior as well as the Vicar of the Karakkamala
Church. She states that on 19.08.2019, she was illegally confined and
she had to lodge a complaint before the police leading to registration of
Ext.P2. Later, on 13.12.2019, she lodged another complaint and Ext.P7
crime was registered. She has also lodged Ext.P8 representation before
the 3rd respondent seeking the appointment of a neutral and impartial
investigating officer. Later, she lodged Ext.P9 complaint wherein it was
alleged that she was being denied access to all the common areas and
that the 5th respondent has installed cameras inside the convent to
monitor her activities. She alleges that she has been receiving
threatening calls which led her to lodge Ext.P10 complaint before the
police. The most serious allegation levelled by her is that on 28.05.2020,
she went in search of the 6th respondent to have interaction and she
alleges that the 6th and 8th respondents were found engaged in sexual
acts inside the kitchen. A perusal of the complaints lodged by the
petitioner would reveal that allegations have been raised against the
other inmates and nuns as well. In other words, much deliberation is
not required to come to a conclusion that the relationship between the
petitioner and the other inmates is quite embittered. The police are
required to visit the convent every now and then based on one allegation
or the other raised by the petitioner alleging wrongdoing by the other
inmates.
16. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the
party respondents essentially is that there is no justification on the part
of the petitioner in insisting to live in the Convent. The order dismissing
the petitioner from the congregation has attained finality. She has retired
from the School as well. Some of the other inmates in the convent as
well as her superiors have been arrayed as either respondent or as
accused in the proceedings initiated by the petitioner. In that view of the
matter, the insistence of the petitioner that she should be permitted to
remain the convent till finality is attained in the suit instituted before the
learned Munsiff is not justifiable is essentially the contention. There
appears to be considerable merit in the submission of the learned
counsel appearing for the respondents. The continued presence of the
petitioner in the convent would only trigger the dispute and there will be
continued disharmony.
17. One of the prayers sought for by the petitioner is for a
direction to the respondents 5 to 8 from interfering with the peaceful
living and complete freedom inside the convent, to access all the
common areas and to be provided with food and water to survive the life
of petitioner in F.C. Convent at Karakkamala in view of the pendency of
O.S.209/2019 before the Munsiff Court, Mananthawady. However, I find
that the petitioner has already approached the Civil court seeking to
interdict the respondents from evicting her from the convent. It is borne
out from the submissions that O.S No.209 of 2019 is still pending
consideration of the Munsiff Court, Mananthawady. An interim order was
passed by the Munsiff Court on 18.12.2019 restraining the respondents
from forcefully evicting the petitioner from the plaint schedule property
until 01.01.2020. However, due to various factors which include the
restrictive functioning of the court owing to the pandemic, the interim
order was not extended.
18. The Apex Court as well as this Court has held in a catena of
decisions that in matters involving civil rights, or disputes regarding title
and possession over property, it would not be proper for this Court to
invoke the extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution
and order police protection. It is also equally settled that a writ of
mandamus directing the police authorities to give protection to the
person or property can be issued when the court is satisfied that there is
a threat to the person and the authorities have failed to perform their
duties. However, it is quite a different matter to grant relief to a person
either to allegedly protect his right to property especially when the
pleading themselves disclose that disputed questions are revolved. (See
State of M.P. and Ors. v. Bhailal Bhai and Ors. [AIR 1964 SC
1006], P.R.Muralidharan v. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar
[(2006) 4 SCC 501]. It is also trite that the special remedy provided
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not intended to
supersede completely the modes of obtaining reliefs by an action in a
civil court or to deny defences legitimately open in such actions. The
police will have no authority to adjudicate on such disputes nor would it
be proper for them to do so. Since the matter is in seisin of the civil
court, it would not be proper for this Court to enter into a finding with
regard to the right of the petitioner to reside in the convent as requested
by the petitioner or to order her eviction as sought for by the party
respondents. I am of the view that in the interest of justice, it would be
appropriate for the learned Munsiff to hear the interlocutory application
and take a decision expeditiously. If either of the parties moves the
jurisdictional Munsiff within a period of one week from the date of receipt
of a copy of the judgment, the interim application shall be heard and
disposed of within a further period of three weeks. The parties shall be
bound by the order passed by the Munsiff. If either of the parties violates
the orders passed as above by the Civil Court, they may move the court
and get the order enforced. For the reasons elucidated above, I am not
persuaded to order police protection to enable the petitioner to continue
to reside in the FCC convent, Karakkamala.
19. Prayer (i) sought for by the petitioner is for a direction
commanding and compelling the respondent Nos.2 to 4 to afford
sufficient, effective and meaningful police protection to the life and
property of the petitioner. I find from the various complaints lodged by
the petitioner that she is continuously being threatened with physical
harm by known and unknown persons. As stated earlier, the petitioner
has been swimming against the tide and her commissions and omissions
have created quite an amount of controversy. In this writ petition, this
Court is not called upon to decide on the truthfulness of the rival
versions. If the petitioner is residing elsewhere than at the FCC Convent
at Karakkamala and if she approaches either the 3rd or the 4th
respondent and lodges a complaint that the party respondents or any
other person have been raising threats or interfering with her peaceful
living, the said respondents shall ascertain the truthfulness of the
allegations and afford adequate protection to the petitioner.
20. Insofar as prayer (iii) is concerned, the petitioner seeks a
direction to the 3rd respondent to preserve and protect the CCTV visuals
in and around the Vicar's Residence and FC Convent, Karakkamala
starting from at least 45 days prior to 28.05.2020 to protect from it being
tampered or destroyed. As held by the Apex Court in Sakiri (supra) and
reiterated in Alyque ( supra) the jurisdictional Magistrate has very wide
powers to direct registration of an FIR and to ensure a proper
investigation. The Court is also empowered to monitor the investigation
to ensure that the investigation is done properly. If the petitioner has a
grievance that the investigation is not proper, it is for her to approach
the learned Magistrate and seek directions. Furthermore, investigation of
a crime is in the domain of the police and it would not be proper for this
Court to direct as to how and in what manner the investigation is to be
proceeded with.
With the above directions, this Writ petition will stand disposed of.
There will be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
ps
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13764/2020
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT ON
19.08.2019.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R. REGISTERED BY THE
4TH RESPONDENT AGAINST THE 6TH RESPONDENT
AND HER ASSOCIATES NO.145/2019 DATED
19.08.2019.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT
DATED 20.08.2019.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R. REGISTERED BY THE
4TH RESPONDENT DATED 20.08.2019.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE INJUNCTION ORDER ISSUED
BY THE MUNSIFF COURT, MANANTHAWADY IN
O.A.NO.209/2019 DATED 18.12.2019.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY
THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT
DATED 13.12.2019.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R. REGISTERED BY THE
4TH RESPONDENT NO.230/2019 DATED
14.12.2019.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE THIRD
RESPONDENT DATED 21.12.2019.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
AND OTHERS DATED 26.1.2020.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS 3
AND 4 DATED 03.03.2020.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY
THE THIRD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
DATED 02.03.2020.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT
DATED 06.06.2020.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R-5(A) TRUE COPY OF THE DISMISSAL ORDER DATED 11-
05-2019 ISSUED BY THE CONGREGATION AGAINST
THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT R-6(A) TRUE COPY OF THE DECRETUM (DECREE) IN
ITALIAN DATED 27-05-2021 ISSUED BY THE
SUPREMUM TRIBUNAL OF SIGNATURAE
APOSTOLICAE.
EXHIBIT R-6(B)
TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT R-6(A)
EXHIBIT R-6(C) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13-06-2021
ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT IN THE WRIT
PETITION TO THE PETITIONER IN THE WRIT
PETITION.
