Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 249 (MAD)

P. Darmaraj v. A. Aruldhas

2001-02-23

V.KANAGARAJ, V.S.SIRPURKAR

body2001
Judgment :- V.S. SIRPURKAR, J. 1. This judgment shall govern Contempt Appeal Nos. 18 of 2000, 19 of 2000, 20 of 2000, 21 of 2000 and 23 of 2000. Contempt Appeal Nos 18 and 19 of 2000 are filed by P. Dharmaraj while, Contempt Appeal Nos. 20 and 21 have been filed by one Rev. M.I. Kesari, a retired Bishop. He would be referred to as “Bishop” in the judgment for the sake of brevity. Contempt Appeal No. 23 of 2000 has been filed by Ramesh Chand Meena, who is the District Collector of Kanyakumari District. He would be referred to as “the Collector” hereinafter. The appellants have challenged the common judgment passed by the learned single Judge of this Court, convicting the appellants for contempt of court as also the sentences passed of imprisonment and fine passed therein. The learned single Judge had disposed of Contempt Application Nos. 488 and 496 of 2000 along with Contempt Sub Application Nos. 270, 275, 276, 299, 301, 302, 306, 307, 319, 320, 321, 322, 351 and 352 of 2000. 2. These contempt proceedings were initiated by one Aruldhas, who is the applicant in Contempt Application No. 488 of 2000 as also by one Mr. Kumardhas and D. Jayaraj, who are applicants in Contempt Application No. 496 of 2000. Both the applications were filed under Art. 215 of the Constitution of India read with Sec. 2(b) and Sec. 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. While the applicant Aruldas alleged wilful and deliberate disobedience of the order dated 12.7.2000, passed by this Court in C.R.P. No. 1390 of 2000, the other applicants, viz. M/s Kumardhas and Jayaraj alleged the disobedience of the order of this court dated 12.7.2000 passed in C.R.P. No. 1251 of 2000. The said two revision petitions mentioned above were disposed of by the learned single Judge (Raman, J.) of this Court, by a common order. While C.R.P. No. 1251 of 2000 was preferred against the order passed by the Principal District Judge, Kanyakumari in I.A. No. 63 of 2000 in Tr.O.P. No. 67 of 2000, C.R.P. No. 1390 of 2000 challenged the order passed by the Principal District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram in I.A. No. 311 of 2000 in O.S. No. 123 of 2000. 3. While C.R.P. No. 1251 of 2000 was preferred against the order passed by the Principal District Judge, Kanyakumari in I.A. No. 63 of 2000 in Tr.O.P. No. 67 of 2000, C.R.P. No. 1390 of 2000 challenged the order passed by the Principal District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram in I.A. No. 311 of 2000 in O.S. No. 123 of 2000. 3. In O.S. No. 123 of 2000, the plaintiffs had sought for a decree of permanent injunctions against the C.S.I. Kanyakumari Diocese, represented by the Bishop, contemner herein. These were firstly, to restrain the defendant from communicating the void and unenforceable decisions of the defunct and incomplete Election Commission, secondly, restraining the defendant from postponing or adjourning or suspending the annual Diocesan Council meetings, scheduled to be held from 11th May, 2000 and thirdly, it was prayed that the defendant should be restrained from taking any action under Art. 66 of the Diocesan Constitution and the Rules. This suit filed on 3.4.2000 along with an application for interim injunctions. Along with the main defendant-Church, represented by its Bishop, some other defendants also came to be impleaded and on 24.4.2000, the trial Court passed an injunction order, granting all the three injunctions specified above. It was against these injunctions that a Civil Revisions Petition (C.R.P. No. 1390 of 2000) under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India straightway came to be filed by Aruldas. 4. 0ne more suit (O.S. No. 100 of 2000) came to be filed on 20.4.2000 before the District Munsif Court, Eraniel by M/s Kumaradhas and Jayaraj as plaintiffs against the Church, represented by its Secretary as also against the Election Commission, represented by its Convener C.S.I. Kanya-kumari Diocese, Kanyakumari District. In this, the plaintiffs sought for a mandatory injunction, directing the second defendant to decide all the election petitions on merits and for a permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from conducting, convening or constituting the Diocesan Council election meetings to be held on 11th, 12th and 13th of May, 2000 and further restraining the first defendant from conducting the Diocesan Council till such time all the election petitions pending before the Election Commission concerning 32 Churches are decided on merits. The other injunction sought for in this suit was restraining the defendants or their men from acting under Art. 66 of the Diocesan Constitution. The other injunction sought for in this suit was restraining the defendants or their men from acting under Art. 66 of the Diocesan Constitution. Along with this also, an application came to be filed by the plaintiffs for an interim injunction. In this suit, status quo was ordered by the District Munsif. 5. One Dharmaraj, who is a contemner before us, filed an application to implead himself as a party to the suit, O.S. No. 100 of 2000, on 24.4.2000 but, the same was not decided and was adjourned by the District Munsif to 27.4.2000 and in the meanwhile, the said Dharmaraj filed an application for the transfer of the said suit to any other Munsifs court in Nagercoil. This was Tr.O.P. No. 67 of 2000 filed before the Principal District Judge, Kanyakumari in which, Dharmaraj also filed an interlocutory application (I.A. No. 63 of 2000) whereby he sought the stay of the order of status quo passed by the District Munsif, Eraniel which he had granted in I.A. No. 162 of 2000. in O.S. No. 100 of 2000. That stay was granted by the District Judge and was to operate till 21.6.2000. C.R.P. No. 1251 of 2000 was filed challenging that order of stay by Kumaradhas and Jayaraj, who were the original plaintiffs in O.S. No. 100 of 2000 before the District Munsif Court, Eraniel. 6. A common question, therefore, emerged from the orders passed by the Principal District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram and the Principal District Judge, Kanyakumari, while the effect of the injunction order passed by the District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram was that the meetings, scheduled to be held on 11th, 12th and 13th of May, 2000 of the Diocesan Council world not be postponed and would proceed, so also the effect of the order of the Principal District Judge granting stay to the status quo order would be that there would be no impediment in holding the meetings without finalising the election petitions, which impediment was created because of the status quo order passed by the Principal District Munsif, Eranial. It is perhaps because of this commonness that the learned single Judge (Raman, J.) decided both the revision petitions by a common order. This common order by Raman, J. was passed on 12.7.2000 and the learned judge set aside both the impugned orders by allowing both the revision petitions. It is perhaps because of this commonness that the learned single Judge (Raman, J.) decided both the revision petitions by a common order. This common order by Raman, J. was passed on 12.7.2000 and the learned judge set aside both the impugned orders by allowing both the revision petitions. The operative part of the order is as follows: “In the result, Civil Revision Petition Nos. 1390/2000 and 1251/2000 are allowed, setting aside the order passed by the Principal District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram in I.A. No. 311/2000 in O.S. No. 123/2000, and the order passed by the Principal District Judge, Kanyakumari in I.A. No. 63/2000 in Tr.O.P. No. 67/2000 on 26.4.2000. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to cost. The Election Commission constituted for the settlement of election disputes shall dispose of the Election Petitions pending before the same viz. all the 42 Election Petitions relating to 32 Churches where from 93 lay-representatives of the Diocesan Council are to be elected, within three months of this order. The results of the elections held to the Diocesan Council for the posts of Secretary, Vice President and various posts on 11th, 12th and 13.5.2000 shall be kept in abeyance only in so far as it relates to the 32 Churches as mentioned above. The results of the other elections shall be declared. It is also made c lear that whoever who are aggrieved by the decision rendered or to be rendered by the Election Commission will be at liberty to challenge the same before the appropriate forum. Consequently, the connected CMPs will stand closed. No costs.” 7. It is an admitted position that after this order, on 19.7.2000 the Bishop declared the results of the elections and formed the Diocesan Council. The contempt applications, one out of the each civil revision petitions, have, therefore, been filed against the Bishop. According to the applicants, the Bishop has, in flagrant violation of the orders of this Court, declared the results of the elections. Two applications for contempt also came to be filed against the contemner Dharamaraj, who was declared to be the elected Secretary of the Diocesan Council and the contention is that he has acted as the Secretary though he knew that he could not have acted owing to the specific orders passed by Raman, J. in paragraph 49, which has been quoted above. An application also came to be filed against the District Collector, Kanyakumari District as it was stated that after the declaration of the results, the Bishop had sought the help of the Government machinery through the Collector and the Collector rendered the help by acknowledging the newly elected office bearers, whose results were declared by the Bishop, in contravention to the orders passed by Raman, J, in the two Civil Revision Petitions. It is also alleged against the Collector that he has shown utter disrespect to the order passed by the High Court and has interfered with the administration of justice. 8. The Church of South India (C.S.I.) Kanyakumari Diocese is one of the major C.S.I. Dioceses in South India. The working of the Kanyakumari Diocese is on democratic pattern and it has a written Constitution. This Diocese runs several educational, medical and other institutions in South India. The constituents of this Diocese are all organised and recognised Churches of South India within the Diocese and the institutions under the Diocese and the approved evangelistic organisations and their centres established within and outside the Diocese. 9. Presently, we are concerned with the constituent churches, which are called “Local Churches”. Every Local Church has “Adult Communicant Members”. Every communicant member is necessarily above fourteen years of age and is a baptized person, having made confession of spiritual union with Christ. Art. 22 of the Diocesan Constitution defines “Church Committee”. The Church Committee consists of “presbyter” and “Deacons”. The Deacons are supposed to be elected once in three years by each congregation and their number depends upon the total number of Audit Communicants in the Local Church. One of the functions of the Church Committee, as would be evident from Art. 23(2) is to elect “Lay Delegates:” to the “Pastorate Committee” and the “District Council” and other subcommittees of the Church at the first meeting of the triennium. Ultimately, the management of the “Diocesan Council” is elected from out of the “Lay Representatives”. There is a body called “Election Commission”, which has the jurisdiction to look into the disputes regarding every election in the Diocese, including the election of the: Deacons to the Church Committee, named above. The Election Commission consists of two Presbyters and three Laymen. These persons are appointed in the last meeting of the Executive Committee for t he triennium. There is a body called “Election Commission”, which has the jurisdiction to look into the disputes regarding every election in the Diocese, including the election of the: Deacons to the Church Committee, named above. The Election Commission consists of two Presbyters and three Laymen. These persons are appointed in the last meeting of the Executive Committee for t he triennium. Three substitutes are also required, they being one Presbyter and two Laymen. If the dispute is from Church, from which any of the member of the Election Commission comes, then, he cannot participate in the working and the Bishop has to then nominate a substitute in his place. Any person found to have indulged in any malpractice in the election by this Election Commission is debarred from holding any position in the administration of the Diocese. 10. Admittedly, there were 42 election petitions pending before the Election Commission. It is the claim of the parties that five of those election petitions were decided and in one such election petition, the election of the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 123 of 2000 to the Church Committee was set aside. The plaintiffs contended in that suit that the Election Commission was a truncated and a defunct body as two of its members had resigned their membership from the Election Commission and as such the Election Commission could not validly work and, therefore, they could not have upset the election of the plaintiffs. Again, in O.S. No. 100 of 2000, which was filed before the Eraniel District Munsif Court, the plaintiffs therein were, however, insisting on the finalisation of the election disputes by the Election Commission and were praying not to hold the meeting of the Diocesan Council till such finalisation. Ultimately, the matters came before this court by way of Civil Revision Petitions at the instance of the parties as the effect of the orders passed by the District Munsif Court at Padmanabhapuram and the Court of District Judge at Kanyakumari was that the meeting had to be held even without finalisation of the forty-two election petitions. It is an admitted position that out of these forty-two election petitions, 93 “Lay Members” would have been sent and these forty-two election” petitions pertained to thirty-two Churches in all out of the total about 450 Churches. It is an admitted position that out of these forty-two election petitions, 93 “Lay Members” would have been sent and these forty-two election” petitions pertained to thirty-two Churches in all out of the total about 450 Churches. It is also an admitted position that the total membership of the “Lay Members” in the “Diocesan Council” is about 800. 11. It was on 9.5.2000 that the learned single Judge of this Court (Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.) passed ad interim orders in C.R.P. No. 1251 of 2000, after hearing both sides to the following effect: “Heard. Counter filed by the third respondent, while admitting the CRP. I feel, in the interests of justice, it will be appropriate to direct the election process to go on as scheduled on 11th, 12th and 13th May, 2000. However, the results of the election so held should not be declared until further orders of this Court:. Therefore it became obvious that while the meeting was to go on during the pendency of the Civil Revision Petition and the elections were also to proceed in that meeting, the results of the elections could not be so declared before the matter was finally heard. Accordingly, the meetings were held on 11th, 12th and 13th of May, 2000 and the elections also were proceeded with. Obviously, in these elections, about 93 “Laymen” also took part, whose elections were directly or indirectly the subject matter in the forty-two election petitions. Ultimately, the Civil Revision Petitions (C.R.P. Nos. 1251 and 1390 of 2000) came to be allowed and Raman, J. passed the directions. This order of Raman, J, was passed on 12.7.2000. 12. It is claimed that the Bishop not only proceeded with the elections but also proceeded with the counting of the votes by appointing “Tellers” with the consent of the two factions in the Diocese with the result that though there was no formal declaration of the results, in fact, the outcome of the elections was all known. An application came to be filed by the petitioners in C.R.P. No. 1251 of 2000 for Contempt against the Bishop, being Contempt Application No. 292 of 2000, that he had flouted the earli er directions of this court of not declaring the results of the elections. This Contempt Application was filed on 29.5.2000. 13. This Contempt Application (Cont. Appln. An application came to be filed by the petitioners in C.R.P. No. 1251 of 2000 for Contempt against the Bishop, being Contempt Application No. 292 of 2000, that he had flouted the earli er directions of this court of not declaring the results of the elections. This Contempt Application was filed on 29.5.2000. 13. This Contempt Application (Cont. Appln. No. 292 of 2000) was put before Ibrahim Kalifulla, J. on 6.6.2000 who adjourned the matter to 23.6.2000. It was during the pendency of this contempt application, which was filed against both the Bishop and Dharmaraj, that an order was passed by Raman, J. allowing the two Civil Revision Petitions (C.R.P. Nos. 1390 and 1251 of 2000) on 12.7.2000. In fact, Raman, J. has in his order dated 12.7.2000 referred to the fact of pending contempt proceedings. Ultimately, the Contempt Applications No. 292 of 2000 came before Ibrahim Kalifulla, J. The learned Judge dismissed the same against the contemner Dharmaraj while accepting the apology offered by the Bishop. The learned Judge held that the Bishop had not deliberately or wilfully violated the order of the court and the learned Judge, therefore, chose to close the contempt proceedings against the Bishop. 14. In pursuance of the directions given by Raman, J. On 12.7.2000, the Bishop went on to declare the results of the elections on 19.7.2000 excepting those which related to the thirty-two churches, regarding whom forty-two election petitions were pending. It is this act of declaration of results by the Bishop is being questioned in the contempt proceedings. The court has already taken the view that the Bishop had committed contempt in declaring the results of the elections and even the contemner Dharmaraj also committed contempt in acting in as the Secretary in pursuance of the declaration of the results while the District Collector had also committed the contempt of court in aiding the contemners in the matter of administration. 15. When the matter of contempt was brought before this Court initially, the learned single Judge (K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.) by order dated 4.8.2000 in Contempt Application No. 488 of 2000, ordered complete stay in the matter of administration. 15. When the matter of contempt was brought before this Court initially, the learned single Judge (K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.) by order dated 4.8.2000 in Contempt Application No. 488 of 2000, ordered complete stay in the matter of administration. However, on the application having been made and it having been pointed out to the learned Judge that the whole administration had come to a standstill because of the stay order and since that practically affected all the institutions run by the Diocese and hundreds of the employees working therein, by his order dated 9.8.2000, the learned Judge permitted the administration to be run by the Bishop during the pendency of the contempt application. 16. Parties are at loggerheads as, according to the faction opposed to the Bishop and the present elected Secretary (Dharmaraj), the Bishop went on to make number of appointments of Correspondents of various educational institutions as also other appointments which, he was not authorised to make at all. Number of applications came to be filed before the learned single Judge, who was dealing with the contempt, praying therein that the orders in the contempt affected them in one way or the other and, therefore, they were liable to be impleaded as parties to the contempt proceedings. We have already indicated that the learned Judge allowed some applications of some employees, who claimed to have been affected by the orders passed by the Bishop in making the appointments. While holding that the contemners in this case had committed contempt of court, the learned single Judge also further went into the question as to whether the appointments made by the Bishop after the order dated 9.8.2000 passed by K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J. are correct and held those appointment to be illegal and has ordered to cancel them. Such applications have also been brought before us for being impleaded in the present proceedings as in these appeals, they are not parties. 17. It is an admitted position today that the contemner Bishop is not any more heading the Church as he has retired and in his place, one Moderator Commissary is working. The said Moderator Commissary has also applied for being joined as a party to these proceedings. 18. 17. It is an admitted position today that the contemner Bishop is not any more heading the Church as he has retired and in his place, one Moderator Commissary is working. The said Moderator Commissary has also applied for being joined as a party to these proceedings. 18. On this complicated and huge factual background, it is to be seen as to whether the learned single Judge was right in holding that in declaring the results of the elections, the contemners have committed contempt of court and whether the learned Judge was right in holding them guilty of contempt of court. 19. The appellants, represented by their counsel, argued the matter commonly though each learned Senior Counsel addressed separately. Learned Senior Counsel M/s. R. Krishnamoorthy, G. Subramaniam, G. Masilamani and A.L. Somayaji addressed us on behalf of the appellants contending that the order passed by the learned single Judge was not a right order and needed to be interfered with. It was the contention raised in general that the operative order passed by Raman, J. and more particularly the sentences in paragraph 49 of the order did not intend to stay the whole meeting and the proceedings therein. The learned Judge, according to them, did not want to keep the results of all the posts in abeyance but, intended to restrict the same to the posts concerning or in relation to the 32 churches regarding which selections petitions were pending. 20. The learned Senior Counsel then gone a step further and says that even if in reality this was not the correct interpretation of the order passed by Raman, J., it can certainly be said that such could be the “reasonable interpretation” and that the contemners and more particularly the Bishop honestly acted on that interpretation and declared the results and as such, there is not wilful disobedience on the part of the Bishop in declaring the election results of such posts which had no relation with the 3 2 churches or as the case may be the 42 election petitions. 21. As regards the other contemner, P. Dharmaraj, Secretary, the learned Senior Counsel Mr. G. Masilamani, points out that he himself is a practising Advocate and it was not for him to do anything in the matter as the declaration of the results could not be at his instance. 21. As regards the other contemner, P. Dharmaraj, Secretary, the learned Senior Counsel Mr. G. Masilamani, points out that he himself is a practising Advocate and it was not for him to do anything in the matter as the declaration of the results could not be at his instance. His contention is that if the results are declared and if he undertook the charge as the Secretary in pursuance of that, he was acting in the “bona fide manner” and it could not be said that he had any intention of flouting the orders o f this Court. 22. As regards, the Collector, the learned Senior Counsel, Mr. A.L. Somayaji, contended that no fault could be found with the Collector, who came into the picture much after the declaration of the results, i.e., after 27.7.2000, that too when he was approached by the Bishop as the Bishop was apprehensive of the law and order situation, which was fast deteriorating owing to the fight between the two factions and that the Collector had acted in a “bona fide manner” in inviting the opinion of the Government P leader and acting on the basis of the same. 23. At any rate, all the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the contemners pointed out that all the three contemners had sought “unconditional apology” of the court and in the event their explanations were not found to be acceptable to the Court, their contempt is liable to be treated purged because of the apologies. According to the learned Senior Counsel, these principles were not properly appreciated by the learned single Judge and the learned single Judge was not right in firstly holding tha t there was any deliberate or wilful flouting of the orders of this Court on the part of any of the contemners and secondly, the learned single Judge also erred in not accepting the unconditional apology offered by all the three contemners. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the learned Judge was not right in drawing the inferences that he did from the factum of appointments made by the Bishop much after the alleged contempt act committed by him. The learned counsel also contended that the appointments made by the Bishop were inevitable and imperative as the Bishop was also insulated by the orders passed by K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J. on 9.8.2000. The learned counsel also contended that the appointments made by the Bishop were inevitable and imperative as the Bishop was also insulated by the orders passed by K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J. on 9.8.2000. According to the learned Senior Counsel, these appointments did not have any connection with the question as to whether the contemners have committed any contempt of court and were guilty of the same. 24. On the other hand, it was equally earnestly canvassed before us by the learned Senior Counsel, M/s. R. Thiagarajan, N.R. Chandran and K. Alagirisamy that this was a case where the learned single Judge had correctly arrived at a conclusion that the contemners had committed contempt of court and did not stop at that but had aggravated the same by making some illegal appointments on the posts in an unconstitutional manner and that the learned Judge was absolutely right in cancelling all those appointments. 25. The learned Senior Counsel also argued that the unconditional apology sought for by the contemners was a mere “eyewash” and the contemners, at least the Bishop and the Secretary Dharamanraj, wanted to take a totally undue advantage of the situation. The learned counsel also went to the extent of saying that the Bishop went on to make the appointments whom he was interested. The learned Senior Counsel, therefore, argued that the judgment of the learned single Judge was liable to be confirmed. 26. It will now, therefore, be our endeavour to test the judgment of the learned single Judge on the above. After stating the facts, the learned single Judge has framed two questions, they being: (i) whether the respondents in the two contempt applications have wilfully and contumaciously disobeyed the order of this Court in C.R.P. Nos. 1390 and 1251 of 2000? (ii) If it is so, whether a consequential injunction setting aside the appointments made by the Bishop can be granted? 27. Before we go further, it must be seen that the Bishop had made certain appointments. It will be seen that during the pendency of the contempt proceedings, on 4.8.2000, K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J. had stayed the whole administration. It was further pointed out to the learned Judge by an application and in pursuance of that, after hearing all the concerned parties, the learned Judge ordered that the administration could be run by the Bishop. It will be seen that during the pendency of the contempt proceedings, on 4.8.2000, K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J. had stayed the whole administration. It was further pointed out to the learned Judge by an application and in pursuance of that, after hearing all the concerned parties, the learned Judge ordered that the administration could be run by the Bishop. It will be seen that the order passed by K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J. on 9.8.2000 was not in challenge in the sense that no separate appeal came to be filed against it by any of the parties. It is the contention of the Bishop that whatever appointments he made were inevitable and in the absence of those appointments, the medical, educational and other institutions could not have continued even for a day. 28. Much was made and it was tried to be argued that all these appointments were illegal and unconstitutional. Mr. R. Thyagarajan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the contempt applicants very earnestly pointed out that these appointments were made shockingly in contravention of the Diocesan Constitution and the said appointments were bad in themselves. In our opinion, there was no reason for the learned single Judge to go into the correctness or otherwise of these appointments. It was tried to be argued that these appointments were the fruits of the contempt, which was committed by the Bishop and, therefore, the learned single Judge was justified in going into the legality of these appointments and also to quash into the legality of these appointments and also to quash if the court came to the conclusion that these appointments were result of the contempt committed by the contemners. We have not yet considered the question regarding the contempt but, we fail to see as to how these appointments could be viewed as a result of the contempt committed by the contemners. Even if we presume that the Bishop had committed contempt by declaring the results of the elections on 19.7.2000 and that the other contemner, P. Dharmaraj, had also committed contempt by acting as the Secretary of the Diocesan Council, which he did, we do not see as to how the appointments made by the Bishop have any nexus with the so called contumacious action of the declaration of the results. According to us, the two things were entirely different and the Bishop was acting in pursuance of the orders passed by this court on 9.8.2000. In our opinion, it cannot be said that the Bishop acted and proceeded to make the appointments in favour of various persons in various posts merely because he had declared the results of the elections held of the Diocesan Council. The two things are quite apart and it cannot, therefore, be said that the said appointments were fruits of the contempt committed by the contemners. We will revert to the subject of the course to be taken in respect of these appointments later on in the judgment. However, it will be our endeavour to see as to whether in declaring the results, the Bishop had committed contempt of court or not. 29. We have already quoted the operative order in the two Civil Revision Petitions and more particularly paragraph 49.0n a plain reading, it was clear that the learned single Judge had allowed the revision petitions against the orders passed by the District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram and the Principal District Judge, Kanyakumari and set aside those orders. Thus, the order of injunction passed by the District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram, the effect of which was to hold the meetings of the Diocesan Council without finalization of the election disputes, was set aside. In result, the learned Judge directed the decision of the election disputes and for that purpose gave t hree months time. However, it is extremely clear that the learned Judge did not want to hold back all the elections and, therefore, proceeded to direct that the results of the elections hold to the Diocesan Council only in so far as it related to 32 Churches would be kept in abeyance for the posts of Secretary, Vice President and other various posts. It was tried to be suggested that when the learned single Judge had specifically mentioned the posts of “Secretary and Vice President”, the results of those posts could not have been declared and the Bishop had committed contempt in declaring the results of those two posts. In our opinion, this cannot be the proper reading. It was tried to be suggested that when the learned single Judge had specifically mentioned the posts of “Secretary and Vice President”, the results of those posts could not have been declared and the Bishop had committed contempt in declaring the results of those two posts. In our opinion, this cannot be the proper reading. In our opinion, the learned single Judge has mentioned of the posts, that is, “Secretary, Vice President and other various posts” regarding which elections were held on 11th, 12th and 13th of May, 2000 and has specifically held that “results of the elections in so far as it relates to the 32 churches shall be kept in abeyance” meaning thereby, that if any one from the said 32 Churches is found to be elected on the posts of “Secretary, Vice President or any one of the various posts” that result shall be kept in abeyance. The intention of the learned Judge becomes all the more clear from the immediate next sentence which follows whereby the learned single Judge directs that the results of the other elections shall be declared. The words “other elections” definitely qualify and are in contradistinction with the elections of the posts co nnected with the 32 churches alone. Now, if it was the intention of the learned Judge to completely stay the declaration of all the results then, the learned Judge could have straightway said so without qualifying the directions for abeyance of the results. Therefore, in our opinion, it cannot be said that the Bishop has wilfully committed the contempt by declaring the results. All through, the defence of the Bishop and also the other contemner, Dharmaraj has been that they have acted in a bona fide manner” by declaring the results. There is no doubt that even Raman, J. has made a reference to the earlier contempt proceedings wherein it was found that the result of the election practically was a foregone conclusion and it was known. In all the elections, the formal declaration of the results is a very important step because unless that step is taken, it cannot be said that the process of election has come to an end. It was that ultimate step, which was stayed by Raman, J. but only in case of the posts which had the nexus with the 32 churches. It was that ultimate step, which was stayed by Raman, J. but only in case of the posts which had the nexus with the 32 churches. After all, by then it was known that the whole election was over in which about 826 persons had taken part as the “Lay Representatives” of the 450 Churches covered by mis Diocese. It was also clear that on 12.7.2000 the counting of the votes was over. We will not comment as to whether the counting should have been done or not because that subject is already closed by the order of Ibrahim Kalifulla, J. and that judgment has become final. However, we may point out that it is not for us to interpret the judgment of Raman, J. We are only trying to probe into the meaning of the final operative clause of the judgment to see whether it could have been so understood by the Bishop and the other contemners who have claimed that they understood in a particular manner. We, therefore, cannot agree with the opinion expressed by the learned single Judge. It is true that the learned single Judge has said that the Bishop should have waited and should have sought the clarification before taking any sweeping decision. We do not agree that in not waiting for the clarification the Bishop has shown a contemptuous attitude. The learned Judge has, in paragraph 20, gone on to consider the attitude on the part of the contemner Bishop. In our opinion, that discussion was not apposite to the question as to whether the declaration of the result was contemptuous or not. In our opinion, these contempt proceedings have been blown out of proportion and the parties are unnecessarily enlarging the scope of the controversy involved and this precisely what happened before the learned single Judge. We are not here to decide as to whether the Bishop was acting in partial manner or otherwise. That is not the subject matter before us, nor was it before the learned single Judge. Again, we are not also to decide upon the correctness or otherwise of the order passed by Raman, J. We are told that the challenge to the same is pending in the Apex Court. That is not the subject matter before us, nor was it before the learned single Judge. Again, we are not also to decide upon the correctness or otherwise of the order passed by Raman, J. We are told that the challenge to the same is pending in the Apex Court. We, however, have found from the explanation by the Bishop that before declaring the results, he took care to obtain the legal opinion and thereafter declared only the results which had no nexus with the 32 churches out of which the election petitions had emanated. Fortunately there is no dispute over that aspect. The results of about nine posts have not been declared by the Bishop treating them to have the nexus with the 32 churches. If this is so then, we do not think that the Bishop would be guilty of wilful contempt. 30. Similar is the case with the other contemner, P. Dharmaraj. He is said to be the elected secretary and he himself is considered to be a Lawyer. It was tried to be suggested that after being declared to have been elected to the post of Secretary, he acted as such. In our opinion, that would not invite any liability against Mr. Dharmaraj. We have already given reasons in respect of the Bishop and the same reasons would apply to his case also. 31. Similar would be the story of the District Collector. The Collector has obviously come on the scene much later. He was approached by the Bishop by a communication dated 27.7.2000 probably on account of the apprehension that there may be a law and order situation. It is obvious that the Collector has acted only and purely in his official capacity and we do not have anything to doubt about his bona fides in the matter. It was tried to be suggested that the Collector took sides. It is obvious that the Collector has acted only and purely in his official capacity and we do not have anything to doubt about his bona fides in the matter. It was tried to be suggested that the Collector took sides. In paragraph 31, the learned single Judge has commented that when the was approached, the Collector called upon the office bearers to meet him and when they met and placed a copy of the order of this Court, instead of directing respondents 1 and 2, (Bishop and Dharmaraj) to file an application in this court and get clarification, he chose to seek the clarification firstly from the Assistant Director of Prosecution Tirunelveli and though that opinion appeared to the correct, he sent a formal letter to the Government Pleader, seeking his opinion and he directed the newly elected office bearers to assume office. He also instructed the Indian Overseas Bark, Nagercoil Branch, to allow the operation of the savings bank account to the newly elected representatives of the Diocese Council. The learned single Judge has recorded a finding on this that the Collector has not acted impartially but he took sides. 32. We do not agree with the learned single Judge for the simple reason that it is not for us to decide as to whether the Collector acted partially or impartially. The Collector has relied on the opinion by the Government Pleader. The learned single Judge has held that the opinion by the Assistant Director of Prosecution was a correct opinion and that the Collector should have acted upon the same. We fail to follow as to how the Collector could have been forced to accept the opinion. He was simply acting as the executive officer in his own discretion that too at the request of the concerned parties and obviously with an idea to avoid any law and order situation. If he waited for the opinion expressed by the Government Pleader, through which we were taken, we do not think that he has chosen to take any sides or that it could be said that he has committed contempt of court. We cannot here ignore the fact that the Collector was, at no point of time, a party to the proceedings. 33. We cannot here ignore the fact that the Collector was, at no point of time, a party to the proceedings. 33. We are, therefore, of the clear opinion that the contemners or any of mem have not committed contempt of court In our opinion, the learned single Judge has laid too much stress on what the Bishop did, that is making the appointments. We are not in a position to agree with the learned single Judge in his expressions in paragraph 28 of the impugned judgment. It seems that it is because of the ultimate appointments made by the Bishop that the contemner Bishop has been convicted as also the Secretary P. Dh armaraj. We are not in a position to agree with the learned single Judge and we hold that there would be no contempt on part of the Bishop firstly in declaring the results of the elections or in making the appointments. We would, therefore, allow the appeals filed by the ‘Bishop, P. Dharmaraj and the Collector, setting aside the order of the learned single Judge. This leaves us with the question of the appointments made by the Bishop. 34. There are number of appointments made by the Bishop probably under the impression that he was the all in all in the matter of management because of the order passed by the High Court. Number of persons have approached us by way of the implead petitions that they are interested in one way or the other in these appointments. It is extremely clear that the appointments made by the Bishop could not be said to be of permanent nature. The Bishop was to act only during the pendency of the contempt applications and the appointments made by him could not be perpetuated. We are reported that the Bishop has now retired. We make it clear that it will be for the concerned parties to challenge the appointments if these appointments are unconstitutional. So also, it will be for the Diocesan Council to either ratify or to cancel the appointments. We make it clear again that the appointments cannot have a permanent character and we leave it to the parties to taken such remedies as are available to them in law. For this, we have already rejected the implead petitions by the various parties. One more implead petition was filed by Moderator Commissary. We make it clear again that the appointments cannot have a permanent character and we leave it to the parties to taken such remedies as are available to them in law. For this, we have already rejected the implead petitions by the various parties. One more implead petition was filed by Moderator Commissary. We find that it was not at all necessary to hear the Moderator Commissary in any manner. We have, therefore, rejected that petition also. 35. In the result, the appeals succeed. The verdict of guilty reached by the learned single Judge is set aside. The order of sentence is also set aside. The fine, if paid, be refunded. Ordered accordingly. Connected C.M.Ps. are closed.