The Tamil Evangelical Luthern ... vs Rt. Rev.D.Daniel Jayaraj
2021 Latest Caselaw 23156 Mad

                                                      1

                       BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                      RESERVED ON                19.04.2022
                                      DELIVERED ON                29.04.2022

                                                  CORAM :

                                  THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI

                                      CONT.P.(MD)Nos.1896 & 1897 of 2021
                                                   and
                                        SUB.A(MD)Nos.24 & 25 of 2022
                                                    in
                                         CONT.P(MD)No.1896 of 2021

                  1.The Tamil Evangelical Luthern Church (TELC),
                    Rep. By it Secretary A.Mehar Antony.

                  2.A.Maher Antony,
                    Secretary,
                    Church Council.
                    The Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church.       ...Petitioners/Appellants
                                                             CONT.P.(MD)No.1896 of 2021


                  K.Albert Inbaraj                           ...Petitioner/8th respondent in

CONT.P.(MD)No.1897 of 2021

Vs.

1.Rt. Rev.D.Daniel Jayaraj Bishop/President (Retired), Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church.

2.Rev.J.Chelladurai, Member, Church Council, Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church, Chairman/Pastor, TELC Church.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

3.D.Wilfred Daniel, Member, Church Council, Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church.

4.Rev.S.Samuel Abraham, Vice President, Church Council, Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church.

Chairman/Pastor.

5.D.Thangapazham, Member, Church Council, Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church.

6.R.Benjamin Jeyaraj, Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church. ...Contemnors/R-1 to R-6 in both Contempt Petitions

COMMON PRAYER: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act, to issue summons and punish the Contemnors/respondents herein under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for wilfully disobeying the order dated 26.11.2021 passed by this Court in C.M.A.(MD)No.619 of 2021.

For Petitioner/s :Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, for Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu, in CONT.P(MD)No.1896 of 2021

Mr.S.Duraikkan S.Phillip, in CONT.P(MD)No.1897 of 2021

For R-1 :Mr.Issac Mohanlal, Senior Counsel for M/s.K.R.Shiva Shankarai

For R-2 :Mr.Niranjan S.Kumar

For R-3 :Mr.S.Venkatesh https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

For R-4 :Mr.S.A.Syed Haroon

For R-5 :Mr.S.Vallinayagam, Senior Counsel, for Mr.P.Arun Jayatram

For R-6 :Mr.T.V.Ramanujam, Senior Counsel for Mr.Sankar

COMMON ORDER

These Contempt Petitions have been filed to issue summons and

punish the Contemners/respondents herein for wilfully disobeying the order

dated 26.11.2021 passed by this Court in C.M.A.(MD)No.619 of 2021.

SUB.A(MD)Nos.24 & 25 of 2022 : The Appellants in C.M.A.

(MD)No.619 of 2021 have been filed these Sub-Applications to appoint

Honourable Judge Administrator for supervising the functioning of the

Church Council in administrating the TELC till the disposal of the suit in

O.S.No.253 of 2020 on the file of the learned I Additional District Court,

Trichy.

2. Heard on either side. Perused the material documents available on

record.

3.The Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church by its Secretary has filed

C.M.A.(MD)No.619 of 2021 on 26.11.2021 and the same was allowed on https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

with certain directions. As per the order in C.M.A.(MD)No.619 of 2021, the

period of Bishop has been ended on 14.01.2021. The other issues can be

decided only in the suit.

4.But, after pronouncing the order on very next day, the Bishop/R-1

has convened a meeting and extend his age from 65 years to 67 years which

was the main agenda.

5.The ingredients of Rule 161 of (C) of the Tamil Evangelical

Lutheran Church Rules, is extracted hereunder:

“161.ELECTION PROCEDURE AND TENURE OF OFFICE OF THE BISHOP:

(C) The Bishop shall retire on the 14th of January, after he has completed 65 years of age of ten years of service as Bishop, which ever is earlier. He shall not be given extension of service as Biship beyond the period mentioned above.”

6.Further, the paragraph Nos.14 to 16 stated in the order, dated

26.11.2021 in C.MA.(MD)No.619 of 2021 are extracted hereunder:

“14.Now, the period of Bishop has also been completed. At this stage, whether he can invoke Rule 128(12) of Church Rules.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

15.The 1st respondent has to establish Special Emergency warranted to invoke Rule 128(12).

16.After trial only, these issues can be decided in the suit. Already, by order, dated 19.03.2021 in A.S.No.18 of 2021 this Court has issued directions to the trial Court to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.253 of 2020 and complete the trial within a period of six months.”

7.All the issues are pending in the suit in O.S.No.253 of 2020, the

Bishop has convened meeting on 27.11.2021 and passed resolution in his

favour regarding all the issues involved in the suit. That too after this Court

has passed an order in C.M.A.No.619 of 2021 as all the issues can be decided

only after trial. The order also confirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court.

8.The resolution Nos.3 to 5, dated 26.11.2021 are extracted hereunder:

“Resolution No:3 This Church Counci approves the resolutions passed by SCC (General Body of TELC) dated 10.11.2020 29 12 2000 and 05.01.2021 more particularly in extending the age of the all the clergies in the Church from 65 to 67.

Resolution No.4 : The Church Council approves the Emergency Circular of Bishop/ President, TELC dated 30.10.2020 issued by the Bishop President, TELC in invoking Rule 128(12) Hence the necessity arises to elect the new secretary https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

to the Church Council, TELC Mr. R. Thanpapacham is elected as the Secretary Church Council Mr. A. Maher Antony and Mr. K Albert Inbaraj had not chosen to attend this meeting in spite of notice sent to them even by yesterday. Hereafter Mr A Maher Antony can continue as a Church Council member but can not claim to be the Secretary of the Church Council TELC and he shall not issue any notification or circular claiming to be the secretary Church Council, TELC.

Resolution: 5 :This Church Council record that in view of the order passed by the Honorable Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in OMA (MD) No. 619/2021 dated 26.11.2021, the Most Respected and Revered Bishop President TELC agrees to with draw Bishop President. TELC Emergency Circular No 4/ 2020 Proclamation of Emergency in TELC dated 01.11.2020 by invoking Rule 194 of the Church Rule Hence Bishop / President, TELC Emergency Circular No. 4/ 2020/ Proclamation of Emergency in TELC dated 01.11.2020 issued by the Bishop/ President, TELC is withdrawn. Here after the Venerable Church Council is restored and it shall continue to discharge its function till the end of the Triennium (2019-2022)''.

9.The period of Bishop has been ended on 14.01.2021 and his age

cannot be extended as per Rules. Only as a member till his period of member

expired, he can act as per the decision of Church council. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

10.But, as Bishop he convened the meeting without any rights. Some

of the members have also attended the meeting and signed in the resolution

which are against the findings of the order passed by this Court in Civil

Miscellaneous Appeal.

11.So, the Bishop/R-1 and other members who had signed in the

resolution wilfully committed disobedience of the order. R-1 to R-6 have

signed in the resolutions by disobeying the Order of this Court.

12.The majority of Church Council (6 members) have signed in the

resolutions. R-2 to R-6 were also colluded with R-1 and disobeyed the order

of this Court. This resolutions clearly shows that the willful intention and

negligence of R-1 to R-6.

13.When the suit is pending and interim order was also passed by this

Court how R-1 convened the meeting on very next day of the order, passed

resolutions and majority members have also signed.

14.So the resolution itself proved the disobedience of R-1 to R-6.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

15.The Article 215 of the Constitution of India stated that, this Court

shall be a Court of record and shall have all the powers of such a Court

including the power to punish for contempt of itself.

16.The ingredients of Section 2(b) of Contempt of Court Rules, 1971

is extracted hereunder:

“2. Definitions: In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,

(b).'civil contempt' means wilful disobedience to any Judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a Court;”.

17.SUB.A(MD)Nos.24 & 25 of 2022 have been filed in the Contempt

Petitions. It is beyond the scope of Contempt petition.

18.The relevant portion of the Judgment in Aseem Gupta, Principal

Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mumbai Vs. Bandu Bhauji

Sidam and Others, is extracted hereunder:

“7. About what is argued on crossing the limits of contempt jurisdiction by this Court, we must say the law is well settled on the proscriptions and prescriptions for granting relief in contempt https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

jurisdiction and this Court being conscious of it, is aware that it cannot grant relief in contempt jurisdiction which is beyond the relief granted in the writ proceeding as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Director General, Youth Services and Sports Department and ors. vs. Sanjay Gupta and ors., reported in 2017 MhLJ Online (S.C.) 105 (2017) 4 SCC 571. But, as stated earlier, this Court has not granted any relief which is beyond the relief granted in the writ petition and as such, the principle of law can be said to have found its expression in the order sought to be reviewed”.

19.The paragraph No.5 of the Judgment reported in (2004) 7 SCC 261,

Prithawai Nath Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, is extracted

hereunder:

“5.The Court exercising contempt jurisdiction cannot take upon itself power to decide the original proceedings in a manner not dealt with by the Court passing the judgment or order. ”

As a Contempt Court, this Court cannot travel beyond the scope of the

petition.

20.So, both the SUB.A(MD)Nos.24 & 25 of 2022 are dismissed.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

21.Accordingly, these Contempt Petitions are allowed. R-1 to R-6 are

the contemners who willfully disobeyed the order of this Court. All the

resolutions, dated 27.11.2021 are cancelled since without any power R-1 has

convened the meeting and passed resolutions for the matters involved in

pending suit. The R-1 to R-6 are directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/-[Rupees

Two Thousand Only], as Costs to the credit of Government of Tamil Nadu,

CMPRF in IOB, Secretariat Branch, Chennai -9 (Account No.11720 10000

00070 , IFSC Code: IOBA0001172), on or before 09.06.2022.

22.Post the matter for reporting Compliance on 10.06.2022.

                  Index :Yes/No                                                   29.04.2022
                  Internet:Yes/No
                  ksa




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Note:In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the Advocate/litigant concerned.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.ANANTHI, J.

ksa

Common Order made in CONT.P.(MD)Nos.1896 & 1897 of 2021

29.04.2022

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis