Kerala High Court
Fr. K. K. Mathews vs Rev. Fr. C.K. Issac Cor Episcopa on 12 June, 2024
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
Wednesday, the 12th day of June 2024 / 22nd Jyaishta, 1946
RP NO. 1148 OF 2023 IN CON.CASE(C) 1761/2023(S)
REVIEW PETITIONERS/CONTEMNORS NO.2 TO 4 & 6:
1. FR. K. K. MATHEWS, AGED 63 YEARS, KUZHUVELIPPURAM HOUSE,
PALLARIMANGALAM P.O., POTHANIKKAD, PIN - 686 671.
2. NOBY SCARIA, AGED 51 YEARS, CHENAYAPPILLIL HOUSE, KADAVOOR P.O.,
KADAVOOR, PIN - 686 671.
3. ELDHOSE VARGHESE, AGED 44 YEARS, PUTHUSSERIYIL HOUSE,
PARAMBANCHERI, PULINTHANA P.O., POTHANICAUD, MUVATTUPUZHA,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 686 671.
4. BABU JOHN, AGED 50 YEARS, SON OF JOHN, VELLAKKALLEL, PULINTHANAM
P.O., PULINTHANAM, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686 671.
RESPONDENTS/PETITINERS AND CONTEMNORS 1 AND 5:
1. REV. FR. C.K. ISSAC COR EPISCOPA, AGED 79 YEARS, SON OF
KURIAKOSE, VICAR, ST. JOHN'S BESPHAGE ORTHODOX SYRIAN CHURCH,
RESIDING AT CHENAYAPPILLIL HOUSE, PARAMBANCHERRY, PULINTHANAM
P.O., POTHANICADU, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN -
686 671.
2. REV. FR. P.V. PHILIP, AGED 74 YEARS, SON OF POTHEN, ASSISTANT
VICAR, ST. JOHN'S BESPHAGE ORTHODOX SYRIAN CHURCH, RESIDING AT
ARIMAPANCHIRAYIL HOUSE, PULINTHANAM P.O., POTHANICADU,
MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 686 671.
3. SHIBIN K.A., PRESENTLY OFFICIATING AS THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
STATION AND STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POTHANIKAD POLICE STATION,
MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 686 671.
4. BASIL MATHEW, SON OF MATHEW, UNNAMTHUVEETTIL HOUSE, POTHANIKKAD
P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686 672.
Review Petition praying that in the circumstances stated in the
affidavit filed along with the RP, the High Court be pleased to review the
order dated 19.10.2023 in Contempt Case (Civil) No. 1761 of 2023 in W.P.(C)
25645 of 2019 to produce the keys before this Hon'ble Court since the order
discloses patent errors of law apparent on the face of the record and liable
to be interfered with and allowed this review petition and set aside the order
referred to in the review petition, in the interest of justice.
P.T.O.
This petition again coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and
the affidavit filed in support of RP, this Court's order dated 28/05/2024 in
RP and upon hearing the arguments of SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.) along with M/S.
ASWINI SANKAR R.S., T.RAMPRASAD UNNI, T.H.ARAVIND & S.M.PRASANTH, Advocates
for review petitioners/R2 to R4 & R6 in COC, M/S. ROSHEN.D.ALEXANDER, TINA
ALEX THOMAS, HARIMOHAN & KOCHURANI JAMES, Advocates for R1 & R2 in
RP/petitioners in COC and of SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL &
SRI.T.S.SHYAM PRASANTH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER for R3 in RP/R1 in COC, the court
passed the following:
P.T.O.
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.
=========================
Cont.Case(C)Nos.299/2024, 329/2024, 330/2024,
1761/2023, 1803/2023,1824/2023 and RP
No.1148/2023
==========================
Dated this the 12th day of June, 2024
ORDER
Sri.K.Ram Kumar - learned Senior Counsel, instructed by
the Sri.Sreenath Vijayaraghavan, appearing for the party
respondents in these matters, except in Cont.Case(C)
No.1824/2023, submitted that the allegations impelled by the
petitioners against his clients are inaccurate and wrong; and
that they have never and do not intend to cause any
obstruction, or commit any action which is in violation of
peace, when the directions in the judgments are sought to be
implemented by the Authorities. He, however, added that his
clients are awaiting the judgments in writ appeals filed against
the judgments involved in these cases.
2. As far as the 10th respondent in Cont.Case(C)
No.1824/2023 is concerned, his learned Counsel - Sri.Saji
Varghese, argued that an appeal has been filed against the
judgment and therefore, that the directions of the learned
Cont.Case(C)Nos.299/2024, 329/2024,
330/2024, 1761/2023, 1803/2023,
1824/2023 and RP No.1148/2023
..2..
Single Judge has not become final. He thus asserted that, the
directions cannot be implemented; but, adding that his clients
have never committed any action which is in violation of law or
in contempt of the orders of this Court.
3. The learned Additional Advocate General, Sri.Asok.
M.Cherian, instructed by Sri.T.S.Shyam Prasanth - learned
Government Pleader, submitted that a Memo has been filed by
him, detailing the predicament faced by the Authorities in
implementing the judgment. He submitted that, however,
since the party respondents make the afore undertaking, an
attempt will be made to implement the judgments; to be
reported to this Court by the next posting date.
4. Even though the learned Additional Advocate
General offers such an undertaking, I must caution the
Authorities, including the Police, that excessive force, or action
which is unnecessary and disproportionate, would not be
tolerated by this Court. They are expected to act within the
confines of law, thus ensuring that the directions are implicitly
complied with.
5. However, since the intention of this Court is to
ensure that compliance of the directions are achieved without
Cont.Case(C)Nos.299/2024, 329/2024,
330/2024, 1761/2023, 1803/2023,
1824/2023 and RP No.1148/2023
..3..
violation of law and order, I leave liberty to the learned
Additional Advocate General, or Sri.T.S.Shyam Prasanth -
learned Government Pleader, to seek any clarification, while
the afore directions are implemented, through appropriate
applications.
Post on 26.06.2024, along with Cont.Case(C)
No.1109/2024.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE
ACR
12-06-2024 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
