Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 656 (MAD)

Robinson v. Mr. G. Devakadasham

2005-04-15

R.BANUMATHI

body2005
Judgment :- (Contempt Petition filed to punish the Respondent for the Contempt of Court committed by him to the order dated 15.12.2004 in C.R.P (MD)(PD)No.271 of 2004, as stated therein.) This Contempt Petition has been filed by the Applicant / Plaintiff in O.S.No.165 of 2003 to punish the Respondent for the Contempt of Court committed by him to the order dated 15.12.2004 in C.R.P (MD)(PD) No.271 of 2004. 2. For appreciating the contentious points urged, we need to trace the history of the case, which led to several rounds of litigation even during pendency of the Suit in O.S.No.165 of 2003, pending on the file of Principal District Munsif, Nagercoil. 3. O.S.No.165 of 2003 - P.D.M. Nagercoil: - The Plaintiffs – Sekar alias Kumar and Robinson are the communicant Members and are eligible voters of Home Church, Nagercoil, C.S.I.Church and Karakonam C.S.I.Church of Kanyakumari Diocese. They are eligible voters of the above said Diocesan Council. The Plaintiffs have filed the Suit in O.S.No.165 of 2003 challenging the Resolution of the Diocesan Council dated 16.01.2003 in respect of the Diocesan Council Membership and for consequential reliefs. The Plaintiffs have challenged the Constitutional Amendment in respect of the Lay delegates to the Diocesan Council in Chapter XXX of the Kanyakumari Diocese as basically wrong. According to the Plaintiffs, those amendments are against the principles of Democratic norms and unethical and against natural justice. Hence, the Plaintiffs have filed the suit for the following reliefs: - (a) Decree for declaration that the Resolution of the Diocesan Council dated 16.01.2003 in respect of the Diocesan Council Membership is ab-initio null and void; (b)Decree for Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendant from implementing the impugned resolution of the Diocesan Council dated 16.01.2003; (c)Decree for permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from ex-communicating the Plaintiffs for having come before the Court by way of filing this Suit. 4. I.A.No.390 of 2003 in O.S.No.162 of 2003:- The First Plaintiff Sekar alias Kumar has filed I.A.No.390 of 2003 in the Suit, seeking an order of Interim Injunction. By order dated 29.04.2003, the District Munsif has granted Interim Injunction as noted below:- "...,t;tHf;F Koa[k; tiu vjph;kDjhuh; - gpujpthjp braw;FG ghpe;Jiuapd; mog;gilapy; nguha FGtpdh; 16/01/2003 vd;W epiwntw;wg;gl;ljhf brhy;yg;gLk; rl;l tpnuhjkhd jPh;khdj;ij bray;gLj;jnth. I.A.No.390 of 2003 in O.S.No.162 of 2003:- The First Plaintiff Sekar alias Kumar has filed I.A.No.390 of 2003 in the Suit, seeking an order of Interim Injunction. By order dated 29.04.2003, the District Munsif has granted Interim Injunction as noted below:- "...,t;tHf;F Koa[k; tiu vjph;kDjhuh; - gpujpthjp braw;FG ghpe;Jiuapd; mog;gilapy; nguha FGtpdh; 16/01/2003 vd;W epiwntw;wg;gl;ljhf brhy;yg;gLk; rl;l tpnuhjkhd jPh;khdj;ij bray;gLj;jnth. nguha FGit Tl;lnth TlhJ vd ,ilf;fhy cWj;Jf; fl;lis cj;jut[ gpwg;gpf;fg;gLfpwJ/ bryt[j; bjhif ,y;iy..." 5.C.M.A.No.29 of 2003–Vacation Civil Judge, Kanyakumari:- As against the exparte order of Interim Injunction granted in I.A.No.390 of 2003, Kanyakumari Diocese, C.S.I.Church represented by its Bishop has filed C.M.A.No.29 of 2003 before the Vacation Civil Judge, Kanyakumari, Nagercoil. Chellenging the exparte order of injunction, they have also filed I.A.No.658 of 2003, seeking stay of order of injunction. Since the First Plaintiff has filed Caveat and was represented by the Counsel, no stay was granted by the Vacation Civil Judge. The case was adjourned to 12.06.2003. 6. C.R.P.No.1071 of 2003:- During the pendency of C.M.A.No.29 of 2003, Kanyakumari Diocese, C.S.I.Church represented by its Bishop has filed C.R.P.No.1071 of 2003 challenging the interim order on the ground that the interim injunction granted by the Trial Court has paralysed the administration of several churches, colleges in Kanyakumari Diocese. After considering the submissions by the parties, this Court (K.GNANAPRAKASAM, J.) has passed the following Order: - "...Admittedly, the Revision Petitioner / Defendant has to administer both religious Churches and Educational Institutions. It has got 450 Churches, 3 Arts and Science Colleges, One Engineering and One Polytechnic, One I.T.I., and other technical Institutes, 14 Higher Secondary Schools, 8 Hospitals, Boarding Homes, Nursery Schools, Blind Schools, Deaf Schools, Nursing Schools, Para-medical Institutions, Industries, Printing Presses, Book Depots, Matriculation Higher Secondary Schools, Childrens Homes, Day Care Centres, School for Mentally retarded person etc., and because of the order of interim injunction, the administration is very much affected which would amount to causing great injustice. That in the circumstances, I am also inclined to pass the very same order, as it was done by the Supreme Court. The parties are directed to maintain status quo which prevailed prior to the institution of the suit, till the disposal of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, which is pending before the lower Appellate Court and the lower Appellate Court is directed to dispose of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal as expeditiously as possible. The parties are directed to maintain status quo which prevailed prior to the institution of the suit, till the disposal of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, which is pending before the lower Appellate Court and the lower Appellate Court is directed to dispose of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal as expeditiously as possible. In the above terms, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs...." The Court has directed the Appellate Court to dispose of the C.M.A.No.29 of 2003 as expeditiously as possible. 7. C.R.P.(P.D)(MD) No.271 of 2004:- This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by Kanyakumari Diocese, C.S.I.Church represented by its Bishop for a direction to the Principal District Judge at Nagercoil to dispose of C.M.A.No.29 of 2003 at an early date and also to direct the Principal District Munsif, Nagercoil to dispose of the Suit in O.S.No.165 of 2003 as early as possible. Upon consideration of the submissions of both parties, this Court has found that the order of this Court in C.R.P.No.1071 of 2003 will hold good. In this Revision Petition, the Court has passed the following order:- "...Having regard to the above contentions of the learned counsel appearing on either side, this Court is of the considered view that the order of this Court referred supra will hold good and therefore the Revision Petitioner / Defendant has to administer both religious Churches and Educational Institutions by maintaining the status quo which prevailed prior to the institution of the suit. In other words, the Revision Petitioner has to administer the Institutions dehors the Council elected subsequent to the date of filing of the Suit till the Trial Court dispose of the Suit on merits...." C.M.A.No.29 of 2003, pending on the file of Principal District Judge, Kanyakumari was ordered to be closed in view of the directions given by Principal District Munsif, Nagercoil to dispose of the Suit in O.S.No.165 of 2003 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 8. S.L.P.(Civil Petition) No.1846 of 2005 filed by Christian Babu S.L.P.(Civil Petition)No.1969 of 2005 filed by Kanyakumari Diocese As against the above order passed in C.R.P.No.217 of 2004, the Parties have preferred Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court. S.L.P.No.1846 of 2005 was withdrawn. In view of the withdrawal of S.L.P.No.1846 of 2005, the S.L.P.No.1965 of 2005 was dismissed. 9. 8. S.L.P.(Civil Petition) No.1846 of 2005 filed by Christian Babu S.L.P.(Civil Petition)No.1969 of 2005 filed by Kanyakumari Diocese As against the above order passed in C.R.P.No.217 of 2004, the Parties have preferred Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court. S.L.P.No.1846 of 2005 was withdrawn. In view of the withdrawal of S.L.P.No.1846 of 2005, the S.L.P.No.1965 of 2005 was dismissed. 9. Contempt Petition No.4 of 2005:- The Applicant has filed this Petition alleging wilful disobedience by the Respondent / Bishop to the order dated 15.12.2004 in C.R.P.(P.D)No.271 of 2004. According to the Applicant, he has sent a Telegram dated 17.12.2004 and letter dated 11.01.2005 requesting the Respondent to hand over charge to the persons who had been holding the same office prior to the date of filing of the Suit. According to the Applicant, Advocate P.Dharmaraj, P.Wilson and Durai Singh were functioning as Diocesan Secretary, Church Board Secretary and Corporate Manager in the Diocese respectively prior to the filing of the Suit; while Professor Christian Babu, Packianathan and Prof.Johnson Joel Singh respectively came to the office subsequent to the filing of the suit and their continual functioning amounts to contempt of wilful disobedience of the order. The Advertisement in Diocese monthly magazine "Desobagari" published in January 2005 by the person elected as Diocese Council Secretary subsequent to the institution of the Suit and by the person appointed as the Director of Youth Welfare Department subsequent to the institution of the Suit amounts to contempt of Court of the order dated 15.12.2004. It is alleged that the Respondent is manipulating things and administering the Institution through the Council elected subsequent to the institution of the Suit. It is further alleged that the persons who had been functioning as Officer of Diocese Institutions, Members of the Executive and Members of C.S.I, Kanyakumari District prior to the institution of the Suit sent to the Respondent a letter dated 17.01.2005 interalia informing that they are prepared and willing to function as Officers of Diocese as per the orders of the Court and requesting the Respondent to make arrangement for assuming charge immediately as officers of Diocese and institutions so as to maintain the status quo as prevailed prior to the date of filing of the suit. The Respondent has committed wilful disobedience of the above said order of the Court dated 15.12.2004. The Respondent has committed wilful disobedience of the above said order of the Court dated 15.12.2004. The Churches and the Institutions are administered and managed by the persons / office bearers who came to power subsequent to the institution of the Suit. Hence, the Applicant has filed this Contempt Petition to punish the Respondent for Contempt of Court committed by him in wilful disobedience of the order dated 15.12.2004 made in C.R.P.(PD)(MD).No.271 of 2004. 10. Countering the averments in the Contempt Petition, the Respondent / Bishop has filed an elaborate Counter Affidavit, denying any wilful disobedience. According to the Respondent, there was no specific direction by the High Court to hand over charge to the previous office bearers whose period of office already expired and hence, question of permitting them to assume office again did not arise. The representation submitted by some of the previous office bearers has no relevance. Regarding the advertisements in "Desobagari", it is stated that those advertisements were given even in the first week of December prior to the order dated 15.12.2004. Even though advertisement was given in "Desobagari" of January 2005, no meeting was convened and no selection of Principal of Nesamony Memorial Christian College, Marthandam was held as advertised in "Desobagari". The present Principal is entitled to continue till the end of April 2005 and the post would become vacant only on 01.05.2005. Stating that there is no specific direction by the High Court that the previous office bearers should be called back, the Respondent has denied any wilful disobedience of the order of the Court. In any event, he has also tendered unconditional apology in case the Court finds him guilty of Contempt of Court. 11. Denying the averments in the Counter Affidavit, the Contempt Petitioner has also filed the Reply Affidavit. 12. Seriously attacking the conduct of the Respondent / Bishop, learned counsel for the Applicant has submitted that despite the direction in C.R.P.No.271 of 2004, the Respondent has not chosen to obey the order in maintaining the Status Quo prior to the filing of the Suit in O.S.No.165 of 2003. It is further submitted that though the Applicant had sent Telegram and the Notice dated 11.01.2005, giving the list of Persons / Office Bearers (prior to the filing of the Suit on 28.02.2003), the Respondent has not obeyed the order in allowing the previous office bearers to function. It is further submitted that though the Applicant had sent Telegram and the Notice dated 11.01.2005, giving the list of Persons / Office Bearers (prior to the filing of the Suit on 28.02.2003), the Respondent has not obeyed the order in allowing the previous office bearers to function. Main emphasis is laid upon the language in the order viz., "...to maintain Status Quo prior to the Suit...". It is submitted that there cannot be any mis-interpretation of the order and that the interpretation by the Respondent that the "Order" could not have been given by the Court against the teeth of the Constitution, it is contended that such averments in the Reply Affidavit only shows the recalcitrant attitude of the Respondent. Drawing the attention of the Court to the Cheques issued by the new Treasurer Professor Robinson and the Publication made by John Milton – newly elected office bearer in "Desobagari" monthly magazine of Diocese in January 2005, it is submitted that the conduct of the Respondent in allowing the newly elected office bearers to function in their respective offices clearly amounts to wilful disobedience and that the Respondent is liable to be punished for Contempt of Court. 13. Countering the arguments and laying much emphasis that the Respondent has highest respect for the Court and the Judicial Institution, learned Senior Counsel has urged the points attacking the maintainability of the Contempt Petition, which is filed under Sec.10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. Contending that the expression "Wilful disobedience" assumes lot of significance in the Contempt Petition, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that once the period of the Office Bearers elected for the Triennium (2000 – 2003) has already been expired and the newly elected Office Bearers have taken charge, the Applicant cannot seek for restoration of the Office Bearers. Drawing the attention of the Court to the order in C.R.P.No.271 of 2004, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that there is no specific direction by the Court for restoration of the previous office bearers and when that being so, the Contempt Petition has been filed by the Applicant, adopting his own interpretation of the said order. Drawing the attention of the Court to the order in C.R.P.No.271 of 2004, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that there is no specific direction by the Court for restoration of the previous office bearers and when that being so, the Contempt Petition has been filed by the Applicant, adopting his own interpretation of the said order. Submitting that there are genuine difficulties in such restoration of the Previous Office Bearers, learned Senior Counsel has attacked the conduct of the Applicant that he is persistent in seeking the Court to punish the Respondent for Contempt of Court and committing him to the prison. Placing reliance upon the decisions reported in NIAZ MOHAMMAD AND OTHERS ..VS.. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ( 1994 (6) S.C.C. 332 ) and MOHD. IQBAL KHANDAY ..VS.. ABDUL MAJID RATHER ( 1994 (4) S.C.C. 34 ), learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the Contempt Proceedings are not in the nature of Execution Proceedings. Learned Senior Counsel has further urged that when there are genuine difficulties in implementation of the order, there cannot be any disobedience of the order of the Court, much less wilful disobedience attracting the Contempt Proceedings. 14. Upon consideration of the submissions by both parties, materials on record, the points that arise for consideration are: whether there is wilful disobedience of the order made in C.R.P.No.271 of 2004 (dated 15.12.2004) and whether the Respondent is liable to be punished for Contempt of Court. 15. Before adverting to the contentious points urged, we may usefully refer to the relevant aspects of the C.S.I.Church and its affiliation to Synod. Kanyakumari Diocese C.S.I is under the constitutional control of Synod and it is to carry out the directions given by Synod. The Constitution of Diocese was enacted in the year 1960; it has been periodically amended upto 1993 and lastly in the year 2003. The Amendment of the Constitution are said to be made in order to suit the situations. The Constitution made in the year 1960 has been amended on various occasions and the latest amendment is of the year 2003. In the Written Statement filed by the Respondent in O.S.No.165 of 2003, it has been contended that the Amendment in 2003 has been passed in consonance with the directions of the Synod and C.S.I.Constitution. The Constitution made in the year 1960 has been amended on various occasions and the latest amendment is of the year 2003. In the Written Statement filed by the Respondent in O.S.No.165 of 2003, it has been contended that the Amendment in 2003 has been passed in consonance with the directions of the Synod and C.S.I.Constitution. It is further contended that the proposed Amendment was duly moved by the then Secretary Advocate P.Dharmaraj and seconded by Professor Christian Babu – the present Secretary. It was then read over, discussed and said to have been passed. In the Written Statement filed by the Respondent, it is contended that the Church of South India C.S.I.Synod has passed a Resolution to accept three lay members for a presbyter and which is accepted by the two third dioceses of the Church of South India, C.S.I.Synod and which is passed in accordance with the directions of the Synod. 16. The latest Amendment 2003 is now challenged by the Applicant and another Plaintiffs as undemocratic and unethical. It is the contention of the Plaintiffs that the representatives to the Synod are elected only on the basis of the democratic principle viz., on the basis of the strength of the Communicant Members and not on the basis of the Pastors. In the Plaint averments, the Plaintiffs have drawn analogy from the election of the representatives of the Parliament as well as to the State Assembly. Merits of these contentious points and the correctness of latest Amendment 2003 are the subject matter of the Suit in O.S.No.165 of 2003 and those issues are to be determined only in the Suit. 17. Election of New Office Bearers:- The term of the office bearers for the Triennium 2000 – 2003 expired on 15.05.2003. The elections were held on 14.05.2003 and 15.05.2003. The newly elected office bearers assumed office on 15.05.2003, on which date the period of the previous office bearers expired. In C.R.P.No.1071 of 2003 filed by the respondent, the stay order was granted on 13.05.2003. Of course, the elections to the next Triennium was held on 14.05.2003 and 15.05.2003, after the stay was granted by the High Court on 13.05.2003 in C.R.P.No.1071 of 2003. Commenting upon the holding of elections after stay order in C.R.P.No.1071 of 2003, it is contended that such conduct of the Respondent shows his hurried efforts to conduct the Election one way or other. Commenting upon the holding of elections after stay order in C.R.P.No.1071 of 2003, it is contended that such conduct of the Respondent shows his hurried efforts to conduct the Election one way or other. As contended by the Respondent in Paragraph 4 of the Counter Affidavit, the period of previous office bearers expired on 15.05.2003. There was no other alternative excepting to hold the elections on 14.05.2003 and 15.05.2003. Prima facie, the said election seems to be in consonance with the direction of the Synod and the Constitution of C.S.I. No motive could be attributed to the Respondent in holding the election on 14.05.2003 and 15.05.2003; much less disregard for the Court's order (Order of Interim Injunction granted in I.A.No.390 of 2003). 18. In paragraph 3 of the Counter Affidavit filed by the Respondent, reference is made relating to the suit filed by the Applicant in O.S.No.440 of 2002, in which he sought for the relief that the Church Election should not be conducted for the next Triennium (2003 – 2005). Later, the said Suit is said to have been withdrawn. It is further stated that as per the Constitution of Kanyakumari Diocese, if any Member of the Church files the Suit without exhausting his remedies provided under the Constitution, he will ipso facto loose Membership of the Church. Ex-communication of the Applicant was communicated to him by the Respondent by letter dated 28.11.2002 of forfeiture of the Membership. In the said Letter, the Applicant was informed that he has ipso facto forfeitured his Membership in the Church since he has filed the case in the Court without exhausting the remedies provided in the Diocesan Constitution. It was only thereafter, the Applicant has filed the petition in I.A.No.763 of 2003 to implead himself as the Second Plaintiff in O.S.No.165 of 2003. It is necessary to keep these aspects in appreciating the points urged in this Petition. 19. It is to be pointed out that apart from the spiritual activities, the Diocese has multifarious secular activities. The Diocese has number of Arts and Science Colleges, Engineering Colleges, Polytechnic and other Educational Institutions, Hospitals, Boarding Homes, Nursery Schools, Blind Schools, Pharamedical Institutions, Printing Presses, Book Depots and Schools for Mentally retarded persons and other Institutions. These secular Institutions are to be administered by the Dioceses, for which, the Respondent is necessarily to take assistance of others. The Diocese has number of Arts and Science Colleges, Engineering Colleges, Polytechnic and other Educational Institutions, Hospitals, Boarding Homes, Nursery Schools, Blind Schools, Pharamedical Institutions, Printing Presses, Book Depots and Schools for Mentally retarded persons and other Institutions. These secular Institutions are to be administered by the Dioceses, for which, the Respondent is necessarily to take assistance of others. In C.R.P.No.1071 of 2003, pointing out the number of Institutions to be administered by the Diocese and the difficulties involved in the administration of those institutions, the parties were directed to maintain status quo, which prevailed prior to the institution of the Suit. The same order has been reiterated in giving the aforesaid direction (in paragraph 7) in C.R.P.No.271 of 2004 dated 15.12.2004. Now, in the Contempt Petition, much emphasis is laid upon two aspects in the aforesaid order viz., (i) Administration of both Religious Churches and the Educational Institutions by maintaining Status Quo, which prevailed prior to the institution of the Suit; (ii) The Revision Petitioner has to administer the Institution dehors the Council elected subsequent to the date of the filing of the Suit till the Trial Court dispose of the Suit on merits. 20. Emphasising the above two aspects, the Applicant / Second Plaintiff has sent letter to the Respondent on 11.01.2005 quoting the above said order in C.R.P.No.271 of 2004 and calling upon the Respondent to maintain Status Quo. In the said Letter, the Applicant has stated thus: "...Thus the Honourable High Court is very particular in maintaining the Status Quo prior to the date of filing the Suit that is long before the date of last election council. But, to my surprise you have been willfully disobeying the Court order obtained in C.R.P.No.1071 of 2003. Even now you are not honouring the order in C.R.P.No.271 of 2004 even after 25 days of its pronouncement. You have not asked the then officers of the Diocesan Institutions to function so as to maintain status quo which prevailed prior to the institution of the Suit, which amounts to contempt of Court. As a final chance, you are requested to make immediate arrangements to maintain status quo prior to the institution of the Suit, in administration within 24 hours of the receipt of this letter. I have already sent a telegram to you to the same effect. As a final chance, you are requested to make immediate arrangements to maintain status quo prior to the institution of the Suit, in administration within 24 hours of the receipt of this letter. I have already sent a telegram to you to the same effect. If you fail to comply, I will be constrained to initiate legal proceedings against you for contempt of Court...". In the said Letter, the Applicant has also given the list of persons / Predecessors, who held various posts. Thus, the Revision Petitioner has been very much insistent upon restoring the posts to the predecessors, who were holding office of the Diocese / Diocesan Institutions. The Applicant has also called upon the Respondent to make arrangements for the Predecessors to take charge, lest the respondent would be liable for Contempt of Court. 21. It is relevant to note that in C.R.P.No.271 of 2004, there was no specific direction to hand over the posts to the persons, who held the office of the Diocesan Institutions prior to the filing of the Suit. In paragraph 5 of the Counter Affidavit, the Respondent has stated that there was no specific direction by the High Court to hand over the charge to the previous office bearers whose period of office already expired. The Respondent had every reason to believe that the High Court has directed him to administer the various institutions by himself without assistance of the newly elected office bearers. The Applicant is not right in insisting upon the restoration of the Office / Posts to the predecessors. 22. As discussed earlier, the term of the previous Office Bearers for the Triennium 2000 – 2003 expired on 15.05.2003. When their period has already expired, there is no question of handing over the charge to the previous office bearers. This is all the more so, when there is no specific direction to restore the office / Church to the persons who held the post prior to the date of filing the Suit. In the absence of any such specific direction, there is no question of disobedience; much less wilful disobedience. 23. Election for various offices in the Churches / Institutions for the next Triennium 2003 – 2005 was held on 14.05.2003 and 15.05.2003. On the basis of the election, new office bearers assumed charge on 15.05.2003. The Churches and the secular Institutions are necessarily to be administered. 23. Election for various offices in the Churches / Institutions for the next Triennium 2003 – 2005 was held on 14.05.2003 and 15.05.2003. On the basis of the election, new office bearers assumed charge on 15.05.2003. The Churches and the secular Institutions are necessarily to be administered. The Respondent alone by himself cannot manage and administer all the Churches and secular institutions associated with the Diocese. In the course of discharging his duties, the Respondent has to necessarily take the assistance of the office bearers. He cannot be faulted for disobeying the order of the Court. 24. Learned counsel for the Applicant has drawn the attention of the Court to certain instances of the functioning of the Churches / Institutions and the Articles / Publications made in "Desobagari", which is the in-house magazine of the Diocese, which are as follows:- (a) One Professor Robinson is said to be the newly elected Treasurer of Kanyakumari Medical Mission. In his capacity as the Treasurer, he has issued two Cheques dated 23.02.2005 in favour of one Sri Laxmi Agencies for Rs.1075/- and Rs.11947/- respectively. (b) In the in-house Magazine of Diocese "Desobagari" in January 2005 issue, important events proposed for 2005 is published in the name of one John Milton, who is said to be the newly elected Office Bearer. (c) In the magazine "Desobagari", advertisements have been caused to be issued by the Christian Babu – newly elected Secretary. The above instances are pointed out in support of the contention that the Respondent has not maintained Status Quo as per the Order of the Court and that in disobedience of the Court order, the Respondent is administering the Institutions and the Diocese with the assistance of the newly elected office bearers. As noted earlier, both the spiritual activities and the secular institutions are to be administered carrying out the day to day activities which cannot be discharged by one single individual viz., the Respondent / Bishop. The functions of the newly elected office bearers is concomitant in the administration of the Diocese. No wilful disobedience could be attributed to the Respondent. 25. There is no specific direction in restoring the previous office bearers; nor had there been a specific interdict not to take the assistance of the newly elected office bearers. It is well settled that when there are genuine difficulties in implementing the Court order, there cannot be any wilful disobedience. No wilful disobedience could be attributed to the Respondent. 25. There is no specific direction in restoring the previous office bearers; nor had there been a specific interdict not to take the assistance of the newly elected office bearers. It is well settled that when there are genuine difficulties in implementing the Court order, there cannot be any wilful disobedience. For the sake of argument, even if we assume that there is such specific direction by the Court, when there are genuine difficulties in implementing the same, the same cannot be amount to wilful default. Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent has aptly referred to the decision reported in MOHD. IQBAL KHANDAY ..VS.. ABDUL MAJID RATHER ( 1994 (4) S.C.C. 34 ). In the said case, the High Court passed an Interim Order, directing the State Government and the Appellant thereon to grant adhoc promotion to the Respondent as the Associate Professor. For non-implementing this order, contempt proceedings were initiated by the Respondent. The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir has declined to accept the unconditional apology of the Appellant and the contempt proceedings were ordered to be continued, adjourning the contempt proceedings. In the Appeal preferred by the Appellant, the Supreme Court has pointed out that when the implementation is impossible and there are genuine difficulties in implementation of the order, there cannot be a proceeding for contempt. In the said decision, the Supreme Court has held thus:- "....There has to be balance the dignity of the Court in requiring obedience to its orders as against the performance of an act contrary to rules compelled by the Court's direction. The law of contempt is based on sound public policy by punishing any conduct which shakes the public confidence in the administration of justice. Right or wrong, the order has been passed. Normally speaking, it cannot be gainsaid that the order ought to have been obeyed but it appears that there are insuperable difficulties in implementing the order. In the present case, the appellant was expressing his genuine difficulties with regard to the implementation of the order. In such a situation the insistence of the courts on implementation may not square with realities of the situation and the practicability of the implementation of the Court's direction. In the present case, the appellant was expressing his genuine difficulties with regard to the implementation of the order. In such a situation the insistence of the courts on implementation may not square with realities of the situation and the practicability of the implementation of the Court's direction. Hooking a party to contempt proceedings and enforcing obedience to such orders hardly lends credence to judicial process and authority; more so, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The Court must always be zealous in preserving its authority and dignity but at the same time, it will be inadvisable to require compliance of an order impossible of compliance at the instance of the person proceeding against for contempt...." In the said case, though the Supreme Court has observed that the conduct of the Appellant was not in keeping with the responsibility of the office he holds, the Supreme Court has however observed that the Court cannot ignore the difficulties of implementation at the time when the contempt proceedings are initiated. The case in hand stands on a better footing. As noted earlier, when there has been no specific direction to restore the previous office bearers, there is no question of disobedience. No doubt, the Court passed the order of Status Quo. But, as submitted by the Respondent, there are insurmountable difficulties in maintaining Status Quo and the Respondent himself administering the Diocese and the Secular Institutions. The impracticalities expressed by the Respondent in maintaining the Status Quo prior to the institution of suit cannot be lost sight of. 26. Contending that the conduct of the Respondent is indifferent and recalcitrant in not obeying the order of the Court, learned counsel for the Applicant has submitted elaborate arguments. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has pointed out three such instances:- (i) The Respondent has filed C.M.P.No.10290 of 2004, seeking for clarification of the order dated 12.05.2004 in C.R.P.No.1071 of 2003. (ii) The Respondent has filed C.M.P.No.1230 of 2004 in C.R.P.No.271 of 2004 seeking for Permanent Injunction restraining the Respondents / Plaintiffs and their men from interfering with the right of the Respondent / Bishop and the elected Members of the Diocesan Council. (iii) C.M.P.No.1189 of 2005 in C.R.P.No.271 of 2004 has been filed for modification of the order viz., to delete paragraph 9 in the said order. 27. (iii) C.M.P.No.1189 of 2005 in C.R.P.No.271 of 2004 has been filed for modification of the order viz., to delete paragraph 9 in the said order. 27. Drawing the attention of the Court to the above said proceedings, onbehalf of the Applicant, it is submitted that the Respondent cannot put forth the plea that he has not properly understood the order and that he was quite conscious of the implication of the order and that is why he filed the application seeking for clarification of the order made in C.R.P.No.1071 of 2003 and also filed an application in C.M.P.No.1189 of 2005 seeking for deletion of paragraph 9 in the said order. It is further submitted that this clearly shows the conduct of the Respondent in persisting to disobey the order of the Court. 28. By careful consideration of the submissions and the relevant materials in the above said proceedings, this Court is unable to appreciate the contention raised by the Applicant. After the order made in C.R.P.No.1071 of 2003, notices are said to have been sent to the Diocese stating that the Court in the order in C.R.P.No.1071 of 2003 has "in effect restored the order of Injunction granted by the District Munsif and therefore the Diocesan Council, the Executive Board, the Office Bearers and the Members who were functioning prior to the amendment of the Constitution of Kanyakumari Diocese, C.S.I. Should be restored and that all orders of transfers should also be cancelled. (Vide Paragraph 12 of the Affidavit in C.M.P.No.10290 of 2004). Since such notices have been sent to the Diocese, it has become necessary for the Respondent to seek for clarification from the Court. After C.R.P.No.217 of 2004 was disposed of, interpreting paragraph 9 of the order, the Applicant has sent Notices to the Respondent, calling upon him to restore the offices to the predecessors. The Applicant also set out a list of persons / Predecessors, who held the post during the previous Triennium (2000-2003). Since the direction in Paragraph 9 of the order has been interpreted by the Applicant and informing the Respondent about the proposed contempt proceedings, to avoid any further complications, the Respondent might have filed C.M.P.No.1189 of 2005, seeking deletion of Paragraph 9 of the order in C.R.P.No.271 of 2004. By the filing of the above proceedings, no disrespect / disregard could be attributed to the Respondent. 29. By the filing of the above proceedings, no disrespect / disregard could be attributed to the Respondent. 29. As rightly submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent, the conduct of the Respondent in obeying the order of the Court is manifested by the letter dated 27.12.2004 sent by him to all the Churches and the newly elected Office Bearers, extracting the order of the Court in C.R.P.No.271 of 2004 and requesting for compliance. The Respondent has written Letter to the Correspondents of all the Institutions informing them that by the order in C.R.P.No.271 of 2004, he has been directed to administer the Institutions by maintaining status quo prior to the institution of the Suit and that he has to administer the Institutions dehors the Council elected subsequent to the date of filing of the Suit till the Trial Court disposes of the Suit on merits. The Respondent has requested the Office Bearers and the Correspondents of the Institutions and others to comply with the orders. The said Office Bearers and Correspondents of the Institutions and others have signed in acknowledgement of the said Letter. When the Respondent has addressed the letter to the newly elected office bearers and the Correspondents of various institutions and others, for compliance of the Court's order, it would not be appropriate to attribute wilful disobedience to the Respondent. 30. It is also to be noted that C.R.P.No.271 of 2004 was filed by the Respondent only to expedite the trial in O.S.No.165 of 2003. In the course of disposal of the Revision Petition and in the light of the order passed in the earlier C.R.P.No.1071 of 2003, learned Single Judge has passed orders of "...Status Quo..." "...Dehors the newly elected office bearers to the Diocesan Council...". The language in the order seems to have substantially weighed in the mind of the Applicant in insisting for restoration of the previous office bearers. In the absence of any specific direction, the summary powers of punishing the Respondent for contempt cannot be invoked. This is all the more so, when there are genuine difficulties in maintaining the status quo and administering the Diocese. 31. The conduct of the Applicant appears to be somehow to execute the order of the Interim Injunction granted by the District Munsif in I.A.No.390 of 2003. This is all the more so, when there are genuine difficulties in maintaining the status quo and administering the Diocese. 31. The conduct of the Applicant appears to be somehow to execute the order of the Interim Injunction granted by the District Munsif in I.A.No.390 of 2003. In fact, the Contempt Petition itself has been filed under Sec.10 and 12 of the Contempt Courts Act. Sec.10 of the Act deals with "Power of High Court to punish contempts of Subordinate Courts". This Contempt Petition filed for disobedience of the order of the Court in C.R.P.No.217 of 2004 does not fall within the scope of Sec.10 of the Act, which deals with the Power of High Court to punish Contempts of Subordinate Courts. The appropriate provision is only Sec.11 of the Act, which deals with the Power of High Court to try a contempt of itself or of any Court Subordinate to it. In insisting to restore the offices to the Previous Office Bearers, the Applicant appears to somehow execute the order made in I.A.No.290 of 2003 (dated 29.04.2003). The contempt Proceedings is not in the nature of execution proceedings. For attracting wilful disobedience as per Sec.2(b) of the Act, there has to be conscious wilful disobedience. Pointing out that the Contempt Proceedings is not like an executing proceeding under Code of Civil Procedure and that there is to be definite material showing that the disobedience is wilful in NIAZ MOHAMMAD AND OTHERS ..VS.. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ( 1994 (6) S.C.C. 332 ) the Supreme Court has held thus:- "....Sec.2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines "Civil Contempt" to mean "wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court...". Where the contempt consists in failure to comply with or carry out an order of a Court made in favour of a party, it is a civil contempt. The person or persons in whose favour such order or direction has been made can move the Court for initiating proceeding for contempt against the alleged contemner, with a view to enforce the right flowing from the order or direction in question. But, such a proceeding is not like an execution proceeding under Code of Civil Procedure. The party in whose favour an order has been passed, is entitled to the benefit of such order. But, such a proceeding is not like an execution proceeding under Code of Civil Procedure. The party in whose favour an order has been passed, is entitled to the benefit of such order. The Court while considering the issue as to whether the alleged contemner should be punished for not having complied with and carried out the direction of the Court, has to take into consideration all facts and circumstances of a particular case. That is why the framers of the Act while defining Civil Contempt, have said that it must be wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court. Before a Contemner is punished for non-compliance of the direction a Court, the Court must not only be satisfied about the disobedience of any judgment, decree, direction or writ but should also be satisfied that such disobedience was wilful and intentional. The Civil Court while executing a decree against the judgment debtor is not concerned and bothered whether the disobedience to any judgment, or decree, was wilful. Once a decree has been passed it is the duty of the Court to execute the decree whatever may be consequence thereof. But, while examining the grievance of the person who has invoked the jurisdiction of the Court to initiate the proceeding for contempt for disobedience of its order, before any such contemner is held guilty and punished, the Court has to record a finding that such disobedience was wilful and intentional. If from the circumstances of a particular case, brought to the notice of the Court, the Court is satisfied that although there has been a disobedience but such disobedience is the result of some compelling circumstances under which it was not possible for the contemner to comply with the order, the Court may not punish the alleged contemner....." 32. Taking into all facts and circumstances into consideration and the responsibility of the Respondent in administering the Diocese and other Institutions, there is no wilful disobedience on the part of the Respondent. In the light of the genuine difficulties expressed by the Respondent, it is not possible to hold that the Respondent has committed Contempt of Court. The Petition for contempt of Court is liable to be dismissed. 33. In the result, this Contempt Petition is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.