Madras High Court
S.Arul Elisa Charles vs The Deputy Inspector on 5 January, 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 05.01.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
WP (MD)No.25037 & 25891 of 2022
and
WMP(MD)Nos.19139, 19142, 20022, 20023 of 2022
in WP(MD)No.25037 of 2022 : -
S.Arul Elisa Charles ... Petitioner
v.
1.The Regional Director,
O/o.the Regional Director Southern Region, Chennai.
Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India,
5th Floor, A Wing, Shastri Bhavan,
26, Haddows Road, Chennai – 6.
2.The Registrar,
O/o.the Registrar of Companies,
Tamil nadu, Chennai,
2nd Floor, Shastri Bhavan,
26, Haddows Road, Chennai – 6.
3.The Director of Collegiate Education,
EVK Sampath Building, 9th Floor, Chennai - 6.
4.The Director of School Education,
College Road, Chennai – 6.
5.The Director of Elementary Education,
College Road, Chennai – 6.
6.Church of South India Trust Association (CSI TA),
Rep.by its Treasurer,
5, Whites Road, Royapettah, Chennai – 14.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/13
7.Church of South India (CSI),
Rep.by its Moderator,
CSI Synod Secretariat,
5, Whites Road, Royapettah, Chennai – 14.
8.The General Secretary,
Church of South India (CSI),
CSI Synod Secretariat,
5, Whites Road, Royapettah, Chennai – 14.
9.Church of South India, Madurai – Ramnad Diocese,
Rep.by its Bishop / Chairman,
No.162, East Veli Street, Madurai – 625 001.
10.The Secretaries, Church of South India,
Madurai – Ramnad Diocese,
No.162, East Veli Street,
Madurai – 625 001. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents 2 to 5 herein
from recognizing the power of attorney issued by the 6th respondent
herein in favour of 9th respondent diocese with regard to administer the
aided schools and aided colleges in the absence of fare election to the
synod members to the 7th respondent from the 9th respondent diocese
and direct the respondents 2 to 10 herein to conduct an election for the
synod members to the 9th respondent from the 9th respondent diocese
under the supervision of a Retired Judge or an Advocate Commissioner.
in WP(MD)No.25891 of 2022 : -
S.Arul Elisa Charles ... Petitioner
v.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1.The Regional Director,
O/o.the Regional Director Southern Region, Chennai.
Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India,
5th Floor, A Wing, Shastri Bhavan,
26, Haddows Road, Chennai – 6.
2.The Registrar,
O/o.the Registrar of Companies,
Tamil nadu, Chennai,
2nd Floor, Shastri Bhavan,
26, Haddows Road, Chennai – 6.
3.The Director of Collegiate Education,
EVK Sampath Building, 9th Floor, Chennai - 6.
4.The Director of School Education,
College Road, Chennai – 6.
5.The Director of Elementary Education,
College Road, Chennai – 6.
6.Church of South India Trust Association (CSI TA),
Rep.by its Treasurer,
5, Whites Road, Royapettah, Chennai – 14.
7.Church of South India (CSI), Rep.by its Moderator,
CSI Synod Secretariat,
5, Whites Road, Royapettah, Chennai – 14.
8.The General Secretary,
Church of South India (CSI),
CSI Synod Secretariat,
5, Whites Road, Royapettah, Chennai – 14.
9.Church of South India, Madurai – Ramnad Diocese,
Rep.by its Bishop / Chairman,
No.162, East Veli Street, Madurai – 625 001.
10.The Secretaries, Church of South India,
Madurai – Ramnad Diocese,
No.162, East Veli Street,
Madurai – 625 001.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11.Rev.B.F.B.Rusevelt,
Synod Member from Church of
South India,
Madurai-Ramnad Diocese
12.Rev.T.Samuel R.V.Singh,
Synod Member from Church of
South India,
Madurai-Ramnad Diocese
13.Rev.I.Jesler Roy,
Synod Member from Church of
South India,
Madurai-Ramnad Diocese
14.Rev.J.C.Ravichandran,
Synod Member from Church of
South India,
Madurai-Ramnad Diocese
15.Rev.S.Davidson Paul Jacob,
Synod Member from Church of
South India,
Madurai-Ramnad Diocese
16.Rev.S.Sam Britto Francis,
Synod Member from Church of
South India,
Madurai-Ramnad Diocese
17.I.Johnson,
Synod Member from Church of
South India,
Madurai-Ramnad Diocese
18.C.Fernandaz Rathina Raja
Synod Member from Church of
South India,
Madurai-Ramnad Diocese
19.J.Josephin Sofia
Synod Member from Church of
South India,
Madurai-Ramnad Diocese
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
20.Padmini David
Synod Member from Church of
South India,
Madurai-Ramnad Diocese
21.J.Paulous Jeyakumar
Synod Member from Church of
South India,
Madurai-Ramnad Diocese
22.R.Mangala Deveraj
Synod Member from Church of
South India,
Madurai-Ramnad Diocese
23.N.Sam Jeyapaul
Synod Member from Church of
South India,
Madurai-Ramnad Diocese
24.P.Sumathi, Synod Member from Church of
South India,
Madurai-Ramnad Diocese
25.P.Sam Sunil
Synod Member from Church of
South India,
Madurai-Ramnad Diocese
26.Mary Jeysing
Synod Member from Church of
South India,
Madurai-Ramnad Diocese ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents 2 to 8 herein
from recognizing or approving the respondents 11 to 26 as Synod
Members to the 7th respondent from the 9th respondent diocese pursuant
to 63rd session of the diocesan Council meeting held on 05.11.2022 in
the 9th respondent diocese and direct the respondents 2 to 10 herein to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
conduct an fresh election for the synod members to the 7th respondent
from the 9th respondent diocese under the supervision of a Retired
Judge or an Advocate Commissioner.
For petitioner in both cases Mr.Sricharan Rangarajan
for Mr.T.Pon Ramkumar
For Respondents Mrs.L.Victoria Gowri,
Deputy Solicitor General of India
for R1 & R2 in both cases
Mr.T.Amjadkhan, Government Advocate
for R3 to R5 in both cases
Mr.V.Prakash, Senior Counsel
for Mr.Adrian D.Rozario for R6 to R8
in both cases
Mr.M.Ajmalkhan, Senior Counsel
for M/s.Ajmal Associates for R9 & R10 in
WP(MD)No.25037 of 2022
&
R9 to R26 in WP(MD)No.25891 of 2022
COMMON ORDER
The petitioner is a member of the Church of South India, Madurai
– Ramnad Diocese. He is also an elected diocesan council member.
The Church of South India is a collective body of various dioceses. The
Synod is the supreme governing body. From each diocese, synod
members are elected by the diocesan council members. CSI though an
unregistered body is governed by its own constitution which deals with
such matters. The elected synod members in turn elect the members of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CSI Trust Association. CSI TA was registered in September 1947 under
Section 26 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 (corresponding to Section
25 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and under Section 8 of the
Companies Act, 2013) as a religious and charitable company which has
no business character and with no profit motive. The properties of the
church have been transferred to CSI TA. The case of the petitioner is
that proper elections must be conducted to elect the members of the
synod because it is from synod, the members of CSI TA are elected and
quite a few of them are ex-officio members of CSI TA also. In the
present case, no election notification was issued. But the respondents
11 to 26 have been appointed as diocesan representatives to synod.
The petitioner would strongly assert that without holding any election
and in utter violation of CSI constitution, respondents 11 to 26 have
been straightaway appointed to synod. Hence, he has come forward
with the above writ petitions.
2.The prayer made in WP(MD)No.25891 of 2022 is for forbearing
the respondents 2 to 8 from recognizing or approving the respondents
11 to 26 as synod members to the 7th respondent from the 9th
respondent diocese. The prayer in WP(MD)No.25037 of 2022 is for
forbearing the respondents 2 to 5 from recognizing the power of attorney
issued by the sixth respondent herein in favour of the 9th respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
diocese with regard to the administration of the aided educational
institutions.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated all
the contentions set out in the affidavits filed in support of the writ
petitions. He also filed notes of arguments. He relied on a catena of
decisions and argued that the writ petitions are very much maintainable
and that the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought for.
4.Both the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the contesting
respondents trained their guns primarily on the maintainability of the writ
petitions. Apart from reiterating the averments set out in the counter
affidavit filed by the 10th respondent, they pointed out that a learned
Judge of this Court in WP No.30472 of 2022 had directed the Registry
to place the papers before the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice for
constituting a larger bench to pronounce on the maintainability of such
writ petitions. The order of reference reads as follows :
“2.A very serious question regarding the maintainability of a
Writ Petition, seeking a mandamus, forbearing the respondents 3 to 6
from functioning as Office Bearers of the 1 st respondent and
consequently, appoint a former Judge or Judges of this Court as
Administrator(s) for managing the affairs of the respondents 1 and 2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
to conduct elections for the Office Bearers as well as the Executive
Committee of the Church of South India Synod for the term
commencing from 14.01.2023 in accordance with the constitution of
the 1 st respondent namely, the Church of South India and its
constituent Dioceses within the time to be fixed by this Court, is
raised in this writ petition.
3.While Mr.S.Thankasivan, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner would rely upon the judgment of this Court in R.Jayakumar
Thomas Jayaraj @ R.Jayakumar Jayaraj Vs. The Deputy Inspector
General of Police to contend that this Court had concluded that a Writ
Petition would lie against the Church of South India even in respect of
maladministration disputes and the said order of the Single Judge
(Hon'ble Mr.Justice R.Mahadevan) has been affirmed by a Division
Bench of this Court in W.A(MD).No.878 of 2019.
4.Mr.V.Prakash, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
respondents would vehemently contend that atleast two Division
Benches of this Court in S.D.K.Rajan & Others Vs. Jeddiya Sathya @
Sathya & others reported in 2014 (3) LW 108 and in R.Issac Robi Vs.
The Secretary to Government, Higher Education and Others reported
in 2017 SCC Online Mad 2380 have taken a view that such Writ
Petitions would not lie. Unfortunately, the earlier Division Bench
Judgements have not been brought to the notice of either Hon'ble
Mr.Justice R.Mahadevan or the Division Bench led by Hon'ble
Mr.Justice.S.Vaidyanathan.
5.In the light of the above conflict, I do not think, it will be
proper for me to enter into the arena of maintainability and decide the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
question, thereby, paving way for further confusion. I therefore, direct
the Registry to place the papers before the Hon'ble Acting Chief
Justice for constituting a larger Bench to resolve the conflict and to
finally pronounce on the maintainability of the Writ Petitions.”
In fact, the issue of maintainability was raised as a preliminary objection.
The learned Senior Counsel reminded this Court that matters relating to
election of an unregistered private body cannot constitute subject matter
of writ petition. This is all the more so because Madurai – Ramnad
diocese of CSI will not fall within the expression “State” as defined in
Article 12 of the Constitution of India. My attention was drawn to the
order dated 09.06.2022 passed by me in WP(MD)No.11290 of 2022.
The learned Senior Counsel pressed for dismissal of these writ petitions.
5.I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the
materials on record.
6.I am of the view that the fundamental issue raised by the writ
petitioner can first be considered by the authorities concerned and if the
petitioner is still aggrieved, he can always come to the writ court seeking
redressal. In a case of this nature, the writ court has to exercise only
the power of judicial review. In the very nature of things, there must be
some order or proceeding available for judicial review. While in one writ
petition relief has been sought against respondents 2 to 5, in the other
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
writ petition, relief has been sought against respondents 2 to 8. The
respondents 2 to 5 are statutory authorities. The sixth respondent is a
company registered under Section 8 of the Companies Act, 2013. The
respondents 7 and 8 are private bodies. The petitioner contended that
what is at stake is the administration of scores of educational institutions
which are getting crores of rupees as State aid. The existence of
element of public interest is too apparent.
7.I therefore permit the the petitioner to submit a fresh
representation before the respondents 2 to 5. As and when the
occasion arises, the respondents 2 to 5 are directed to take a call in the
matter. I am more than satisfied that election as contemplated by CSI
constitution was not conducted for electing the synod members from the
9th respondent diocese. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
contesting respondents probably realising that they cannot convince that
an election was conducted, chose to harp on the defence of
maintainability. The first call must be taken only by the statutory
authorities. This Court will not go into the issue at present by exercising
its power of judicial review. The stage is yet to arrive.
8.Leaving open all the contentions and defences of the petitioner
and also permitting him to invoke the common law remedy, the writ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
petitions are disposed of with the aforesaid direction. No costs.
Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
05.01.2023
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
SKM
To:
1.The Regional Director,
O/o.the Regional Director Southern Region, Chennai.
Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India,
5th Floor, A Wing, Shastri Bhavan,
26, Haddows Road, Chennai – 6.
2.The Registrar, O/o.the Registrar of Companies,
Tamil nadu, Chennai, 2nd Floor, Shastri Bhavan,
26, Haddows Road, Chennai – 6.
3.The Director of Collegiate Education,
EVK Sampath Building, 9th Floor, Chennai - 6.
4.The Director of School Education,
College Road, Chennai – 6.
5.The Director of Elementary Education,
College Road, Chennai – 6.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
SKM
WP (MD)No.25037 & 25891 of 2022
and
WMP(MD)Nos.19139, 19142, 20022, 20023 of 2022
05.01.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
