Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 799 (MAD)

Bishop/President, Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church, Trichy and Another v. S. D. Mohan Das Gandhi and Others

2008-03-04

A.P.SHAH, FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA

body2008
Judgment : F. M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J. All these appeals arise out of a common order of the learned single Judge, dated 3.12.2007 passed in O.A. Nos. 964 and 965 of 2007, 6091 of 2007 and A. No. 5748 of 2007 in C.S. No. 713 of 2007. 2. The issue relates to the holding of elections to the Church Council of the first appellant in appeal Nos. 399 to 402 of 2007. 3. The first appellant, namely, The Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church (for short TELC) is a Christian religious organisation. It has got its own hierarchical set up of administration starting at the bottom of all “Congregations” ending with the body caiied “Church Council”. The head of the Church, namely, TELC, is the Bishop of Tranquebar, who is also the spiritual father of Pastors and Congregations. To be more specific, the hierarchy of administration, starts from Congregations‘ then to ‘Pastorates‘ followed by ‘District Executives‘, thereafter, by the ‘Synod‘, the ‘Synod Continuation Committee‘ and the ‘Church Council‘. 4. The administration of TELC is governed by well defined rules called church rules of TELC. Under its administration, apart from religious practices, it has spread its wings to other fields, namely, medical, help youth work, industrial activities, acquisition of properties, school and college level education, printing and publication, Evangelism, Revival and Communication, Hostels, Homes and Childrens Ministry etc. Congregation is nothing but a group of Lutheran Christians residing within the defined territorial limits of a particular place of worship, which limits to be defined by the Church Council. The Pastorates are the relevant body of a congregation or group of congregations recognised by the Church Council and each Pastorate is placed under the stewardship of a Pastor. Each Pastorate has got its own Pastorate Committee headed by the Pastor-in-charge. Under Rule 16 of the TELC Rules (hereinafter called as Rules), the tenure of the membership of the Pastorate Committee is ordinarily for a triennium, which would become functus officio, six months after the end of triennial synod. At the pastorate level, apart from the pastorate committee there is one other body called Pastorate Conference. The eligibility of a person to be a member of the Pastorate Conference is stipulated in Rule 48. Group of pastorates constitute a District and the administration of District is under the control of District Council and an executive called District Executive (for short DC and DE). The eligibility of a person to be a member of the Pastorate Conference is stipulated in Rule 48. Group of pastorates constitute a District and the administration of District is under the control of District Council and an executive called District Executive (for short DC and DE). The composition of a District Council is again specifically stipulated in Rule 94. Under Rule 99, the tenure of membership of a District Council is held to be for a triennium. Under Rules 52 and 81 of the Rules, the method of election to the Pastorate Conference, District Council, Synod Constitution Committee and Synod by the Pastorate Conference is set out. 5. The Synod is held to be the sovereign legislative body of the church. It has the sovereign authority over the administration and doctrinal matters of the Church and it is the synod which is the electoral college of the Church Council. The composition of the Synod is set out in Rule 131. Rule 131-A specifies the tenure of the members of the Synod by stating that the elections and nominations of the Synod are only for that session of the Synod and not for the triennium. Under Rule 133, Synod should ordinarily be held once in three years during summer vacation. It is otherwise called the Triennial Synod and in case of necessity the Church Council is empowered to summon a special Synod. 6. Rule 144 prescribes the procedure for the election of the Church Council members by the members present in the Synod. The composition of the Church Council consists of the President (Bishop) and eight other members elected by the Triennial Synod. Out of 8 members 3 should be clergy men and five laymen. The composition of Church Council is set out under Rule 117. Apart from the supreme body of Synod, there is one other body called Synod Continuation Committee. It is stated to be the General body of TELC. The composition of Synod Continuation Committee is set out under Rule 153. In fact, if any vacancy arises in the Church Council, a provision has been made under Rule 118 to fill up such vacancies by co-option and such co-option is held to be valid only until the next meeting of the Synod Continuation Committee or the Synod, whichever is held earlier, which alone can fill in the vacancy by election as per rules. The pivotal post of the Bishop is also to be elected by holding an election whenever a vacancy arise. Rule 161 prescribes the election procedure and tenure of the office of the Bishop. While the Synod Continuation Committee should propose a panel of three ordained ministers of the TELC elected by absolute majority, one of the three as Bishop of Tranquebar is elected by an absolute majority of the synod. The Bishop should be not less than 50 years of age on the date of election to the panel and can hold office till the completion of 65 years of age or ten years of service as Bishop, whichever is earlier. 7. Though under Rule 188 there is provision for taking action against those who go to Court on church matters, in the course of hearing of these appeals, the learned Senior Counsel for both the parties, submitted that the said rule was subsequently deleted on 15.8.2003. There is a residual power vested with the Bishop under Rule 194 to assume the functions of any of the administrative or legislative Committees, Councils and other bodies of the church, for such time as may be necessary in case of special emergency. Similarly, under Rule 195, it is stated that where the rules do not cover any particular situation, Church Council shall have the power to frame a rule and act on it and report the same to the next Synod Continuation Committee. Under Rule 196, any alteration or addition to the rules can be made only by the Synod Continuation Committee or the Synod itself. Under Rule 199, it is prescribed as under: “ 199. Proceedings of the Synod, SCC, and DC not to be invalidated on account of any vacancy, irregularity in election, etc. No act or proceedings of the Synod, SCC and DC shall be deemed to be invalid by reasons of. the existence of any vacancy in the Synod/SCC#x002F;D.C, from amongst the delegates to be elected from the Pastorates or District or other bodies or any defect or irregularity or subsequent invalidation or other causes of a like nature in the election of any delegate to the Synod/SCC#x002F;D.C, or absence of any delegate in the Synod/ SCC/D.C.” 8. the existence of any vacancy in the Synod/SCC#x002F;D.C, from amongst the delegates to be elected from the Pastorates or District or other bodies or any defect or irregularity or subsequent invalidation or other causes of a like nature in the election of any delegate to the Synod/SCC#x002F;D.C, or absence of any delegate in the Synod/ SCC/D.C.” 8. Though Rule 200 of the Rules, impose a prohibition on the members from questioning the rules, in any Court of law, the proceedings of the Synod or the Synod Continuation Committee, including the validity of the election on the ground of irregularity or technicality, inasmuch as the said rule diametrically conflicts with the statutory provisions, it looms large whether such a rule can ever be acted upon. 9. In the above stated background, about the rules governing the administrative set up of TELC, the case on hand will have to be examined. 10. The issue involved in these appeals centres around the election to the Church Council by the 40th Triennial Synod. 11. According to the appellants, it is stated that there are 1,08,850 Congregations, 113 Pastorates and 10 Districts. The above three bodies including the Pastorate Conference Members constitute the members of the electoral college, namely, the synod. The Synod also consists of other members such as ex-officio, and as stated earlier, it is the synod which elects the Church Council members numbering eight. Since entire facts involved in these litigations have been set out at length by the learned single Judge, we do not propose to repeat the same in our order. Sans ofunnecessary details, the relevant facts are that 38th Triennium of the synod was between 1.6.2001 to 31.5.2004. In the said Synod, Church Council members got elected and they held office for a period of 3 years i. e. between 1.6.2001 to 31.5.2004. The first appellant Bishop though issued Synod Notification No. 1 of 2004, dated 1.6.2004 for commencing the Synod on 16.9.2004 ending with 18.9.2004 for electing the members of the Church Council, due to certain litigations including a suit and applications filed in C.S. No. 646 of 2005 the election did not take place as scheduled in the month of September 2004. The injunction application filed in C.S. No. 646 of 2005 was dismissed on 27.1.2006 which order was also confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court, by order, dated 24.3.2006 passed in O.S.A. No. 88 & 89 of 2006. Thereafter, the first appellant issued the Synod Notification No.2 of 2004-2007, dated 26.4.2006. Subsequently, between 29.5.2006 and 31.5.2006, the 39th Triennial Synod meeting was held and the elections to the Church Council was also conducted. Though elections were held for the Church Council, the results could not be announced again due to the Court order passed in O.S. No. 35 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Usilampatti, which was stated to have been subsequently withdrawn. Ultimately, the results were declared only on 7.11.2006 and the members of the Church Council could assume office only on 7.11.2006. 12. Be that as it may, the appellant and the first appellant herein issued the Synod Notification No. 1 of 2007, dated 24.4.2007 for holding 40th Triennial Synod 2007 to be held between 13th September and 15.9.2007. The said notification prescribed various schedule of dates to be adhered to for electing the Church Council members for the Triennium 2007-2010. The said notification was challenged by one A. Jagaraj Solomon in the Vacation Court of Thiruvallur in O.S. No. 176 of 2007 and in I.A. No. 382 of 2007 an order of injunction was granted till 18.6.2007. The said order was passed on 17.5.2007. 13. In the light of the order of injunction, the first appellant communicated to all the Pastors and other bodies through his communication, dated 14.6.2007 not to proceed further based on the Synod Notification No. 1 of 2007 until further orders. 14. It is in the above stated background, the present suit in C.S. No. 713 of 2007 came to be filed on 19.7.2007 along with an application in O.A. No. 964 of 2007 seeking for an order of injunction restraining the respondents 3 to 11 in the application, namely, the existing Church Council members from continuing to act as members of the church or office bearers in the church of TELC pending suit. The applicant also prayed for an interim mandatory injunction to direct the first appellant-Bishop to proceed forthwith to convene the 40 Synod for Triennium 2007-2010 as per the Synod Notification 1 of 2007 dated 24.4.2007 to constitute the Church Council and office bearers for 2007-2010. In O.A. Nos. 964 and 965 of 2007 and in application No.5748 of 2007 in C.S. No. 713 of 2007, an interim order came to be passed on 26.9.2007, wherein after taking note of certain interim orders passed in O.S. No. 176 of 2007 by the District Munsif Court, Tiruvallur, another order in O.S. No. 3314 of 2007 by the City Civil Court, Chennai and yet another order in O.S. No. 325 of 2007 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Madurai, a comprehensive interim order was passed by invoking Clause 13 of the Letters Patent to withdraw all the above suits and transfer to this Court. The interim order passed by the City Civil Court to the effect that the respondents therein would not alienate any property without the permission of the Court was affirmed. It was further ordered that there would be no restraint on the daily administration of management of orphanages and schools by the Church Council members. By the present order, dated 3.12.2007, the applications in O.As.N6.964 and 965 of 2007 and application No. 5748 of 2008 as well as the O.A. No. 6091 of 2007 in C.S. No. 713 of 2007 have been finally disposed of by the learned single Judge by holding that unless an interim order of mandatory injunction is passed directing the second and third defendants in the suit, namely, the Bishop and one other Church Council member to proceed further with the election process pursuant to the Synod Notification No. 1 of 2007, the entire church administration would be seriously prejudiced and different time schedule was also specified in the order for holding the 40th Triennial Synod. In Application No. 6091 of 2007, the learned Judge appointed a retired Judge of this Court as an Administrator to monitor the conduct of the 40 Triennial Synod. 15. In the result, applications Nos. 964 and 965 of 2007 were allowed. In Application No. 5758 of 2007, the proceedings of the first appellant-Bishop, dated 14.6.2007 was stayed. In Application No. 6091 of 2007, the learned Judge appointed a retired Judge of this Court as an Administrator to monitor the conduct of the 40 Triennial Synod. 15. In the result, applications Nos. 964 and 965 of 2007 were allowed. In Application No. 5758 of 2007, the proceedings of the first appellant-Bishop, dated 14.6.2007 was stayed. The application in I.A. No. 382 of 2007 in O.S. No. 395 of 2007 by the District Munsif, Tiruvallur, which came to be transferred and renumbered as 1154 of 2007 in Tr.C.S. No. 899 of 2007, was dismissed vacating the interim injunction already granted. Similarly, injunction application in I.A. No. 840 of 2007 in O.S. No. 1274 of 2007 on the file of the Distrrct Munsif Court, Trichy, which came to be transferred and renumbered as Tr.C.S. No. 1016 of 2007 was also dismissed. In the light of the orders passed in the applications In C.S. No. 713 of 2007, the application in I.A. 9022 of 2007 in O.S. No. 3314 of 2007 on the file of the City Civil Court, Chennai, which came to be transferred and renumbered as Tr.A. No. 1151 of 2007 in Tr.C.S. No. 897 of 2007 was closed. 16. We heard G. Masllamani, T.V. Ramanujam, M. Venkatachaiapathy, R. Viduthalai, learned senior counsel for the appellants and N.R. Chandran, learned senior counsel for the first respondent. 17. G. Masilamani, learnedsenior counsel in his submissions, at the outset, fairly stated that irrespective of the decision as regards the commencement of the period of office and the duration of such office or the Church Council Member to be decided in these appeals, the appellants are prepared to convene the Triennial Synod and hold the elections for electing the Church Council members during 2008 summer vacation. 18. The learned senior counsel also submitted that taking note of the actual date of office of the present set of Church Council members, namely, 7.11.2006, there Is scope for holding that their period of office of three years should be counted from the date they assumed office and that alternatively, it can also be held that such period would commence from the deemed date of 39th Triennium, namely, 1.6.2004 irrespective of the actual date of assumption of office, namely, 7.11.2006, and calculated on that basis, the date of expiry would be 31.5.2007. He also submitted that 39th Triennial Synod actually met from 29.5.2006 to 31.5.2006 and that the three year period of the office of the Church Council members can be calculated from 29.5.2006 ending with 31.5.2009. 19. It was also contended by the learned senior counsel that if going by the election Notification No. 1 of 2007, dated 1.6.2004, which announced the schedule of Synod meeting as 16.9.2004 to 18.9.2004, the period of office of the Church Council members can be held to have lasted till 17.9.2007. 20. The learned senior counsel, however, contended that the most appropriate method of calculation would be in permitting the Church Council members, who got ultimately elected in the 39 Triennial Synod to hold office for the full term of three years, in the light of the onerous responsibility imposed on them. According to the learned senior counsel, the curtailment of the said period will not be in the interest of TELC. 21. As far as the eligibility of once elected church council member to contest in the subsequent election, the learned senior counsel contended that having regard to Section 15(5) of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, the restriction imposed under Rule 117 (note 2) of the TELC Rules, will not apply. 22. The learned senior counsel lastly, contended that since there was no serious allegations against the first appellant-Bishop except stating that he did not take immediate steps for vacating the ex parteinterim injunction granted by the District Munsif Court, Tirvuallur, the appointment of Administrator to hold the elections as ordered by the learned single Judge cannot be sustained. 23. The learned senior counsel relied upon the decision Sri Ram Pyare and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others Sri Ram Pyare and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others Sri Ram Pyare and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others AIR 1982 SC 831 : (1982) 1 SCC 671 for the proposition that once poll was held as a part of the programme of the election, it must be progressed to the statutory end of declaration of results and unless the term begins to run, it cannot come to an end. By relying upon the said ratio laid down by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court, G. Masilamani, learned senior counsel submitted that the present Church Council members having assumed office on 7.11.2006, it should be held that they can validly continue to hold office for the full period of three years ending with 6.11.2009. 24. As against the above submissions, N.R. Chandran, learned senior counsel for the contesting respondents would contend that the holding cf office of the Church council members always synchronised with the respective Triennial Synod inasmuch as the Synod is the supreme body which decides the whole administrative set up of TELC. The learned senior counsel after referring to the proceedings issued by the first appellant-Bishop based on the decisions taken by the present Church Council members themselves in the issuance of the Synod Notification No. 1 of 2007, dated 24.4.2007 as well as the other proceedings contended that even the appellants themselves have understood that their period of office would expire in conjunction with the commencement of the 40th Triennial synod in the month of March 2007 and therefore, the appellants cannot be permitted to raise any contention contrary to their own understanding. 25. The learned senior counsel also referred to the concession made by the appellants in O.S. No. 3314 of 2007 on the file of the City Civil Court, where an undertaking was made by the appellants themselves in I.A. No. 9022 of 2007 to hold the elections in the month of September 2007 and contended that they ought to have fulfilled their commitment as undertook by them in the City Civil Court, and therefore, the continuation of office by the present set of Church Council members is wholly illegal and they should not be allowed to continue to hold office any further. 26. As far as the appointment of Administrator by the learned single Judge is concerned, N.R. Chandran, learned senior counsel contended that when the attempt was made to stifle the election pursuant to the synod notification No. 1 of 2004, dated 1.6.2004, the first appellant took every effort to get the injunction vacated for holding the elections and now the very same enthusiasm was not displayed in getting the injunction vacated when granted by the Tiruvallur District Munsif Court. 27. 27. According to the learned senior counsel, instead of taking steps to get the injunction vacated, the first appellant issued the proceedings, dated 14.6.2007 to stop all further proceedings pursuant to the synod Notification No. 1 of 2007, dated 24.4.2007. 28. According to the learned senior counsel, such a conduct of the first appellant was in collusion with the present set of Church Council members with a view to allow them to continue to hold office unlawfully, and therefore, the conclusion of the learned single Judge in entrusting the holding of the 40th Synod for the purpose of electing the Church Council members with the Administrator was well justified. 29. As far as the eligibility of the existing Church Council members to contest for more than one term, the learned senior counsel contended that while Section 15(5) of the Act only stipulates that members of the committee can be reappointed, Rule 117(2) only regulates such reappointment in the interest of the administration of TELC and therefore, the same cannot be construed to mean that the rule conflicts with the provisions of the statute. 30. The learned senior counsel N.R. Chandran, placed before us the Chronological order of the Triennial Synod, between 1887-1890 and 2004-2007 and contended that when such a course was being followed by the TELC in the holding of the triennial Synod once in three years, the same should not be disrupted, simply because the present set of Church Council members can hold office only for a lesser period synchronising with the Triennial Synod. 31. T.V. Rajamanujarn, learned senior counsel appearing for the first appellant-Bishop, in his submissions, contended that the first appellant would abide by any directions that may be issued by this Court as regards the holding of office by the present set of Church Council members and the commencement and holding of elections by the 40th Synod to the church council members. 32. The learned senior counsel only contended that when the first appellant obeyed the interim orders of the civil Court, the same cannot be put against the first appellant and on that score, no outsider can be allowed to interfere with the administrative set up of the TELC, which would impinge upon its independent existence. 33. 32. The learned senior counsel only contended that when the first appellant obeyed the interim orders of the civil Court, the same cannot be put against the first appellant and on that score, no outsider can be allowed to interfere with the administrative set up of the TELC, which would impinge upon its independent existence. 33. The learned senior counsel assured that based on the orders of this Court, the first appellant would scrupulously abide by the directions and conduct the 40th Synod and the elections to the satisfaction of everyone of the members of the TELC The learned senior counsel by referring to the conclusion of the learned single Judge in paragraph 75 of the judgment submitted that when the granting of temporary mandatory injunction as prayed for by the first respondent to direct the first appellant-Bishop, was imminent, the learned single Judge ought not have allowed the other application No. 6091 of 2007 by appointing the Administrator. The learned senior counsel by relying upon the decision K. P. M. Aboobucker v. K-Kunhamoo and Others K. P. M. Aboobucker v. K-Kunhamoo and Others K. P. M. Aboobucker v. K-Kunhamoo and Others AIR 1958 Mad 287 : (1958) 1 MLJ 303 contended that there is no scope to grant any relief beyond what has been prayed for. 34. AR.L. Sundaresan, learned senior counsel appearing for the fourth respondent in O.S.A. No. 398 of 2007 and R. Viduthalai, learned senior counsel appearing for the 9th respondent in O.S.A. Nos. 388 and 389 of 2007 also submitted that the holding of office of the Church Council members should always synchronise with each Triennial Synod and cannot be disassociated with it. 35. M. Venkatachalapathy, learned senior counsel appearing for some of the Church Council members supported the arguments of G. Masilamani, learned senior counsel for the appellants. 36. 388 and 389 of 2007 also submitted that the holding of office of the Church Council members should always synchronise with each Triennial Synod and cannot be disassociated with it. 35. M. Venkatachalapathy, learned senior counsel appearing for some of the Church Council members supported the arguments of G. Masilamani, learned senior counsel for the appellants. 36. Having heard the respective councels (sic) and having perused the various materials placed before the Court, we find that the following four primary questions arise for our consideration in these appeals: a. What is the tenure of the church council and whether it should synchronise with the Triennial Synod or should it function for a full period of three years without reference to the Triennial Synode b. Whether the church council members once elected are entitled to get re-elected more than twice as stipulated in the rulese c. When the 40th triennial synod should be helde d. Whether the 40th triennial synod and the election for the church council members can be held by the first appellant-Bishop himself or should it be entrusted with the Administrator. 37. For deciding the first question, apart from the rules referred to above, we also noted the Chronological order of the Triennium stated to have been held from 1887-1890 till the 39th Triennial synod of 2004-2007 submitted by the first respondent. If the contents of the said statement Is true, then it will have to be stated that the TELC light from the date of its inception, was holding the Triennial Synod scrupulously adhering to the Triennium without any deviation for more than a century. To the said details furnished on behalf of the first respondent, certain objections were also filed on behalf of the appellant in O.S.A. Nos. 399 to 402 of 2007. In the said objections, it is stated that in between the years 1914-1917 and 1917-1920, no Triennial Synod was held due to the first world war. It is also stated that in the year 1915-1916 all German Missions were sent out from this country and that in the year 1918, the Church of Swedish Mission took over the church. 38. It is further stated that on 14.1.1919, a special Synod took place when the TELC Society was formed and that on 29.1.1919, the TELC Society was registered. 38. It is further stated that on 14.1.1919, a special Synod took place when the TELC Society was formed and that on 29.1.1919, the TELC Society was registered. It is also pointed out that Chronological Order of the Triennium furnished by the first respondent disclose that the proposed Synod as 41st one while only the 39th Triennial Synod has so far been held. Even if the objections of the first respondent is taken to be true, we can only discern that but for the disruption in the holding of the Triennial Synod twice or thrice in a span of 110 years, the Church seem to have bestowed its keen interest and concern in the holding of the Triennial Synod except under extraordinary circumstances, which were beyond its control in holding the Synod. 39. As pointed out by the appellant themselves, the Triennial Synods for the year 1914-1917 and 1917-1920 were not held due to first world war. It is quiet plausible that in a state of emergency that was prevailing due to the prevalence of first world war, it might be that the church was not in a position to hold the Triennial Synod. From such exceptional happenings, one cannot conclude that there was no significance or importance attached to the holding of the Synod itself or for that matter no seriousness was attached in the holding of the Triennial Synod. In our considered opinion, taking into account the emergence of the church institution either at the behest of German mission or Swedish mission, historically, the holding of the Triennial Synod in the relevant years seem to have been meticulously followed to maintain the consistency of the Triennium. After all, when the Synod is the supreme body which really represents the congregation which is the base or the edifice over which the Church institution is set up, the holding of the Triennial Synod at the regular intervals of three years assumes greater significance. Further, as noted by us, right from 1887-1890, the Triennial Synod was being held consistently maintaining the Triennium except for a minor deviation in between 1914-1917 and 1917-1920 due to the extraordinary circumstances, which was apparently, beyond the control of the head of office and therefore, it will have to be held that the holding of the Triennial Synod in an undisrupted manner should continue to be maintained. In other words, we hold that the Triennial Synod has so far been held without any disruption and such spirit exhibited so far should be maintained in future as well. We say so, because unless such strict adherence in the Triennium is maintained in the organisational set up of the pivotal body in the matter of holding of its Synod meet, there would be scope for causing disruption in every other administrative set up and consequently the other activities of the Church will be affected. It will have to be remembered that the church, namely, TELC apart from its religious interest has established very many institutions in the field of medicine, deconness, youth work, industrial activity, acquisition of property, socio-economic development, collegiate education, school education, printing and publication evangelism, hostels, homes, childrens ministry etc. The smooth running of all those institutions depends upon the proper organisational and administrative set up at different levels. The TELC having established very many institutions apart from its Church activities, it is Imperative that the organisational set up created should be allowed to function in an uninterrupted manner in order to maintain and administer the various institutions including the Church for its successful operation. The Synod being the main representative body of congregations and the historical maintenance of its Triennial meetings having been demonstrated for more than a century, we are convinced that such a set up should continue to be maintained even in the future years consistent with the Triennium meet of the synod. 40. We find that even the office of lesser body, namely, Pastorate Committee, membership is also synchronised with the said rule, namely, to remain in office for that Triennium only. Under Rule 16, it is specifically stipulated that when a vacancy arises for the Pastorate Committee, during the triennium, it should be filled up by election by the Pastorate Conference within three months and the period of such membership should be for the remaining portion of the triennium only. Similarly, such provision has been incorporated under Rule 99 in respect of the District Council Membership. In the TELC set up as has been stated earlier, while the congregation is at the bottom level, the highest administrative body below the office of Bishop is the Church Council. In between, in the organisational set up, the Pastorate Committee and the District Committee, are functioning having their own demarcated area of operation. In the TELC set up as has been stated earlier, while the congregation is at the bottom level, the highest administrative body below the office of Bishop is the Church Council. In between, in the organisational set up, the Pastorate Committee and the District Committee, are functioning having their own demarcated area of operation. While the Pastorate Conference is the electoral body of the members of the Pastorate Committee, the elected delegates for the District Committee is made by the Pastorate Committees and the Pastorate Conference depending upon the proportion of membership available in a pastorate, 41. In this context, when we refer to Rule 61, we find that the meeting of the Pastorate Conference is also Triennial, though, annual meeting is provided for consideration of annual accounts, audit etc. Therefore, the relevant rules, pertaining to the office of pastorate council membership, elected members of the district council and election to the office of Church Council membership by the Triennial Synod have got some specific significance referable to the triennium. We are, therefore/ convinced that the triennium of the Synod from its first Synod to the 39th Synod was consistently maintained for electing the Church Council members and the said consistency maintained in the 39th Triennial Synod should be scrupulously followed even for the 40 Triennial Synod by adopting its period of 2007-2010 without any deviation. Any other conclusion, as regards the triennial period of the Synod would disrupt the consistency that was being maintained all through for more than a century. 42. Historical background apart, even going by Rules 16, 61 and 99 the prescribed period of holding of office in respect of different levels of office of TELC, namely, Pastorate Council, District Council, and the Church Council is the Triennium. 43. When we look into the holding of election to the office of church councilmembership for which the electoral body is the Synod which has been characterised as sovereign legislative body of the Church under Rule 133, it is specifically provided that the Synod should ordinarily be held once in three years during summer vacation and that it should be called as Triennial Synod. In case of necessity, the Church Council may summon a special Synod. 44. Under Rule 134, the Church Council should notify the time and place of the Synod to the Pastorates and the Districts three months before the meeting. In case of necessity, the Church Council may summon a special Synod. 44. Under Rule 134, the Church Council should notify the time and place of the Synod to the Pastorates and the Districts three months before the meeting. Such convening of the Synod once in three years is for the purpose of the election of the Church Council Members. Under Rule 151, it is stipulated that the Synod is the main legislative body of the Church. It has sovereign authority over the administration and doctrinal matters of the Church. In respect of Church Council Members also, in the event of a vacancy arising in the Church Council after its election, the same should be filled up by co-option and such co-option is held to be valid only until the next meeting of the Synod or the Synod Continuation Committee, whichever is earlier. 45. As far as the Synod Continuation Committee is concerned, it is the general body of the TELC consisting of six members and amongst various other functions prescribed under Rule 160 one of the functions of the Synod Continuation Committee is to elect members of the Church Council when a vacancy arises. The specific provisions contained in Rules 16, 61, 99, 118 and 160(8) of the Rules in giving a thrust to the period of holding of office for a Triennium and thereby, limiting such holding of office of elected members for a period of three years from the date of such election, supports our conclusion that the framers of the rules and for that matter, the founding fathers of this institution, purposefully intended to limit the holding of office of various administrative bodies, namely, Pastorate Council, District Council as well as Church Council to commence and end with the holding of office of respective electoral bodies whose term has been specifically held to be triennium right from the date of its first commencement synchronising with the triennial synod held between 1887-1890 uptil 2004-2007. 46. Apart from the rules, even going by the manner in which, the parties have understood the rules, it can be concluded that the Triennial Synod as was being maintained from the first Synod till the 39th Synod should be maintained for the future years. 46. Apart from the rules, even going by the manner in which, the parties have understood the rules, it can be concluded that the Triennial Synod as was being maintained from the first Synod till the 39th Synod should be maintained for the future years. In this context, the reference made by the learned senior counsel for the first respondent to the proceedings of the Church Council meeting, dated 17.11.2006 and 18.11.2006, wherein as part of its administrative functions, various appointments came to be made and every resolution in respect of those appointments made a specific reference to the effect that such appointment is “for the rest of the Triennium 2004-2007”. Similar such expressions were made in the proceedings of the Church Council, dated 23.11.2006 and 24.11.2006. In fact, in the proceedings of the Church Council held on/23.11.2006 and 24.11.2006 a resolution in respect of the elections to the Pastorate Council, District Council and the Synod Continuation Committee for the Triennium 2004-2007 has been passed. A specific reference to the Triennium 2004-2007 is in tune with the relevant rules, namely, Rules 16, 61, 99 and 153 of the Rules. Subsequently, on 7.11.2006, when the Church Council meeting took place, Hostel Board and Medical Board were constituted consisting of certain members, where again, it was specifically mentioned that such constitution would be only for the rest of the Triennium 20042007. Such reference to other appointments made in respect of nomination of representatives from TELC to the Community Service Centre, Chennai, appointment of Elementary Education Committee, appointment of correspondents to various other institutions including the District Chairman to the Pastorates came to be made by specifically mentioning that such appointments and constitutions were for the rest of the Triennium 2004-2007. That apart, in the counter affidavit of the first appellant, dated 18.6.2007 filed in I.A. No. 9022 of 2007 in O.S. No. 3314 of 2007, the first appellant himself has stated that the Church Council members do not wish to continue in office for a period of three years and that steps have been taken to constitute the new Church Council and the election process had already begun. In paragraph 20 of the counter affidavit/ the first appellant-Bishop has stated that the election process has begun, that the Synod would be conducted in September 2007 and the new Church Council will assume office immediately thereafter. 47. In paragraph 20 of the counter affidavit/ the first appellant-Bishop has stated that the election process has begun, that the Synod would be conducted in September 2007 and the new Church Council will assume office immediately thereafter. 47. A perusal of the order of the 11th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, in I.A. No. 9022 of 2007 in O.S. No. 3314 of 2007 also reveals that the present Church Council passed a resolution under Exhibit Al, dated 27.5.2001, wherein it has been resolved to the effect that the term of the present Church Council Members should expire by May 2007. It is also recorded in the said order about the stand of the respondents that steps have been taken for holding the elections for the 40? Synod in the month of September 2007. In the Synod notification No. 1 of 2007, dated 24,4.2007 announcement was made for holding the 40th Triennial Synod of TELC during 13th-15th September 2007. The schedule of dates for election to various offices have also been announced in the said notification. 48. A reference to all the above factors and the reading of the relevant rules referred to in the earlier paragraphs thus makes it clear that Triennial Synod is the sovereign body, that so far 39th Triennial Synod ending with the period 2004-2007 has taken place and that the 40th Triennial Synod should be for the period of 2007-2010. 49. In the light of our above conclusion, we hold that the tenure of the present Church Council should synchronise with the Triennial Synod and its period of office should also end with the 39th Triennial Synod. The Triennial Synod having ended in May 2007, the 40th triennial synod should commence immediately, thereafter and end with 2010. We, therefore, answer the first question to the above effect. 50. The next question to be considered is whether the church council members once elected are entitled to get re-elected more than twice as stipulated in the rules. 51. The said question arises in the light of the stipulations contained in Rule 117 (Note 2), which reads as under: 52. Having regard to the said specific terms contained in the Rules, N.R. Chandran, learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent would contend that there is a specific prohibition for a Church Council Member to contest for more than two terms continuously. Having regard to the said specific terms contained in the Rules, N.R. Chandran, learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent would contend that there is a specific prohibition for a Church Council Member to contest for more than two terms continuously. However, G. Masilamani, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants as well as T.V. Ramanujam, learned senior counsel for the first appellant-Bishop contended by making specific reference to Section 15(5) of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 that since the statute does not create any specific embargo for a committee member to get reappointed, the provision contained in the rules will have to yield to the statutory provision and therefore, the contention of the first respondent cannot be accepted. 53. The learned senior counsel also brought to our notice the amendment brought out by Act No.19 of 2000, published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary Pert IV, Section 2, dated 2.6.2000 in and by which the earlier sub-section 6 to Section 15 of the said Act came to be omitted, which as It stood earlier was to the following effect: “No person shall be a member of the Church Council for more than two terms continuously.” “(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (5), any person who has completed six years continuously as a member of the committee shall be eligible, after one term has elapsed from the date of hisceasing to be such member, for appointment to the committee.” 54. A reading of the above sub-section, which has now been omitted by Act No. 19 of 2000, makes it clear that the legislature which in its wisdom originally incorporated the said provision creating a restriction in the holding of office as a member of a committee continuously beyond two terms and that there should have been a break of at least one term in order to enable such member to get reelected again to the office of a member of a committee thought it fit that even the said restriction was no longer required. Therefore, the contention of the appellants merits acceptance. Therefore, the contention of the appellants merits acceptance. When the statute does not create an embargo for an existing Church Council Member to contest for the election and get re-elected for any number of terms, the Rule which has lesser force when compared to the statutory provisions cannot be permitted to operate and the said rule is liable to be ignored when it conflicts with the statutory provision. 55. In this context, it will be worthwhile to refer to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court N. Priyadarshini and Others v. Secretary to Government, Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai(9) N. Priyadarshini and Others v. Secretary to Government, Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai(9) N. Priyadarshini and Others v. Secretary to Government, Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai(9) (2005) 3 MLJ 97 : 2005 (3) CTC 449. In paragraph 27 of the judgment, the legal position has been set out in the following words at p.111 of MLJ: “ 27. In this connection, it may be mentioned that according to theory of the eminent jurist Kelsen (the pure theory of law) in every country there is a hierarchy of laws and the general principle is that a law in a higher layer of this hierarchy will prevail over the law in a lower layer of the hierarchy (See KELSENS‘S “THE GENERAL THEORY OF LAW AND STATE”). In our country this hierarchy is as follows: (i) The Constitution of India (ii) Statutory law (which may be either Parliamentary law or law made by the State legislature). (iii) Delegated Legislation (which may be in the form of rules made under the statue, regulations made under the statute, etc. (iv) Purely administrative or executive orders. The 1997 Regulations framed by the Medical Council of India as also those framed by the All India Council for Technical Education and the Dental Council) are norms in the third layer in this hierarchy. On the other hand, the impugned G.O. Ms. No. 184, Higher Education (12) Department, dated 9.6.2006 is in the 4 layer of the hierarchy. Hence, if there is a conflict between the two, the Regulations will prevail. In our opinion, there is a clear conflict between the two, because the G.O. Ms. On the other hand, the impugned G.O. Ms. No. 184, Higher Education (12) Department, dated 9.6.2006 is in the 4 layer of the hierarchy. Hence, if there is a conflict between the two, the Regulations will prevail. In our opinion, there is a clear conflict between the two, because the G.O. Ms. No. 184, Higher Education (32) Department, dated 9.6.2006 (isc) has done away with the system of common entrance examination test, although admittedly there are several examining bodies/boards in the State of Tamil Nadu.” 56. Therefore, since Rule 117(Note 2) conflicts with the operation of Section 15(5) of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, the provision contained in the Act alone will prevail and consequently, we hold that the Church Council Members are entitled to get re-elected any number of terms and we answer the question No. (b) accordingly. 57. On this aspect, the learned single judge took the view that Rule 117(Note 2) cannot be examined vis-a-vis, the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 and the said conclusion of the learned single Judge, cannot therefore, be sustained having regard to our conclusion based on Section 15(5) of the Act. The contrary conclusion of the learned single Judge made in paragraphs 53 to 62 are hereby set aside. 58. Now, we come to the question No. C, which relates to the time schedule for the holding of the 40th triennial synod. 59. The learned single Judge after taking note of the stand of the appellants themselves in I.A. No. 9022 of 2007 in O.S. No. 3314 of 2007 as well as the relevant rules has held that the Triennial Synod should be held for the Triennium 2007-2010 and that the period of office of the Church Council Members for the triennium 2004-2007 had come to an end by 30.5,2007. In view of our conclusion based on relevant rules, as well as, other materials we also confirm the view of the learned single Judge. We too hold that the 40th Triennial Synod is bound to commence from 2007 and end with 2010. After the orders of the learned single Judge, the Triennial Synod was not held and we hold that it should not brook any further delay. We only want to reschedule the same as under. 60. We too hold that the 40th Triennial Synod is bound to commence from 2007 and end with 2010. After the orders of the learned single Judge, the Triennial Synod was not held and we hold that it should not brook any further delay. We only want to reschedule the same as under. 60. In the light our conclusions in the earlier paragraphs, the first appellant-Bishop and the third respondent/Secretary of the Church Council are directed to issue continued Synod notification for the 40 Triennial Synod to be held from 4th May to 6.5.2008 and conduct the election for the 40 Triennial Synod as per the following time schedule. 61. In the light of this order and in the exercise of powers conferred on this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, it is hereby directed that if any other suit or application is filed in any other Court subordinate to this Court, insofar as the holding of the 40th Triennial Synod and the election to the Church Council Members is concerned, the same shall be transferred to this Court for being tried along with the suit in C.S. No. 713 of 2007. 62. With that view, we come to the last question viz., whether the 40th Triennial Synod and the election to the Church Council Members can be held by the first appellant-Bishop himself or should be entrusted with the administrator as ordered by the learned single Judge. 63. In fact, in the suit itself, the prayer of the plaintiff is to grant mandatory injunction as against the first appellant herein to forthwith proceed to convene the 40th Triennial Synod 2007 2010 and to constitute the Church Council and office bearers for the Triennium 2007-2010 in accordance with the existing Church Rules. Subsequently, in Application No.965 of 2007 in C.S. No. 713 of 2007 an interim order of mandatory injunction has been applied with the same prayer. However, later on, the first respondent came forward with O.A. No. 6091 of 2007 in C.S. No. 713 of 2007 seeking for an order appointing an Advocate Commissioner to conduct the elections to the Church Council and to convene the 40th Synod for triennium 2007-2010. However, later on, the first respondent came forward with O.A. No. 6091 of 2007 in C.S. No. 713 of 2007 seeking for an order appointing an Advocate Commissioner to conduct the elections to the Church Council and to convene the 40th Synod for triennium 2007-2010. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application, the only allegation as against the first appellant was that after the passing of the interim orders by the District Munsif Court, Tiruvallur in I.A. No. 382 of 2007 in O.S. No. 176 of 2007, the first ‘appellant instead of taking necessary steps for getting the interim injunction vacated, proceeded to issue Notification No. 2 of 2007, dated 14.6.2007 postponing the holding of the Triennial Synod for the triennium 2007-2010 as announced in the Synod Notification No. 1 of 2007, dated 24.4.2007. 64. On that basis, it was alleged that the first appellant Bishop by taking umbrage under the interim order of the District Munsif Court, Tiruvallur colluded with the other Church Council Members and wanted to prolong their holding of office as Church Council Members. In fact, the said stand of the first respondent, weighed with the learned single Judge, who directed the appointment of a retired judge of this Court to act as an Administrator. We are of the opinion that in order to bring any third party into the affairs of the TELC other than the head of the institution, namely, the first appellant-Bishop, there must be prima faciestrong case made out. Merely because the first appellant in obedience to the order of the District Munsif Court, Tiruvallur, dated 14.5.2007, issued the notification postponing the election pending further orders, that by itself cannot be taken to mean that he was colluding with the Church Council Members in the absence of any other material supporting such an allegation. 65. One other allegation with reference to the said issue is that after the filing of the suit and the postponing of the election, the Church Council Members had passed various orders of transfer of teachers en-masseand that such transfers came to be made in a haste and therefore, it should be held that the first appellant was indirectly supporting the Church Council Members in the issuance of such orders. Apart from the allegation of the first respondent, it was pointed out that there were no specific allegations by any of the teachers alleging that the first appellant or any of the Church Council Members mere acting mala fideor indulged in misuse or abuse of power. We are nottherefore, convinced that the first appellant was acting against the interest of TELC or congregation members in order to hold that no confidence can be reposed in the first appellant to permit him to hold the 40th Triennial Synod in accordance with the Rules. 66. Under Rule 134 of the Rules, it is the Church Council to notify the time and place of the Synod to the Pastorates and the Districts, three months before the meeting. Rule 144 prescribes the procedure for the election of Church Council Members. As per the procedure, the voter should write names of those whom he/she wishes to be elected on a ballot paper given by the Bishop/President who is the presiding officer of the Synod. The voter should exercise his voting right for all the required number of members at a time. 67. A reading of the above referred to rules makes it amply clar as to how and in what manner the Synod should be convened and the election to be held under the behest of the first appellant Bishop and the Church Council. We, therefore, do not find any need or necessity to deviate from the prescribed procedure under the Rules and allow any third party to enter into the affairs of TELC. We, therefore, do not find any justification in the order of the learned single Judge in the appointment of Administrator for holding the election. 68. In the light of the procedure prescribed under Ru;e 144 prescribing the manner in which, the ballot paper has to be operated by a voter, we are of the view that there is very little scope for the first appellant-Bishop or any Church Council member to interfere with the franchise to be exercised by the individual voters. 68. In the light of the procedure prescribed under Ru;e 144 prescribing the manner in which, the ballot paper has to be operated by a voter, we are of the view that there is very little scope for the first appellant-Bishop or any Church Council member to interfere with the franchise to be exercised by the individual voters. Therefore, we hold that appointment of the Administrator is wholly unnecessary and we are confident that the first appellant-Bishop will prove his mettle to the position which he holds and there will be no scope for anyone to make any complaint as to the manner in which 40th Triennial Synod is held as well as the election to the office of the Church Council Members. We, therefore, set aside that part of the order of the learned single Judge as regards the appointment of Administrator for holding the 40th Triennial Synod. It goes without saying that the first appellant should ensure free and fair election right from the time of issuance of the 40th continued Synod notification. The first appellant shall also monitor the announcement for election to the Pastorate Committee and ensure that the elections are held as per the Schedule of dates mentioned in para 60. Similarly, he shall also ensure that the District Committee meetings are convened as scheduled and the elections to be held for electing the lay delegates and monitor the preparation of voter list for the Synod scrupulously. The first appellant shall also ensure that the installation service is completed to enable the smooth transition of office. The order of the learned single Judge insofar as it related to the appointment of Administrator and the consequential directions issued to the Administrator are hereby set aside. 69. We, therefore, hold that: i) The Synod is always for a triennium and the consistency maintained from the first Synod of 1887-1890 till the 39th Synod of 2004-2007 should be maintained for the future years also except for any special Synod as provided under Rule 133. ii) The 39th Triennial Synod ended in May 2007 and the 40th Triennial Synod should be for the period 2007-2010. iii) The tenure of the Church Council should always synchronise with the Triennial Synod. iv) The Church Council Members are entitled to get re-elected any number of terms andRule 117 (Note 2) which conflicts with Section 15(5) of Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act. iii) The tenure of the Church Council should always synchronise with the Triennial Synod. iv) The Church Council Members are entitled to get re-elected any number of terms andRule 117 (Note 2) which conflicts with Section 15(5) of Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act. 1975 cannot therefore operate. v) The 40th Triennial Synod should be held as per schedule of dates prescribed in para 60 of this order. ??vi) The first appellant-Bishop is directed to hold the 40th Triennial Synod and the election for the Church Council Members as per rules. The Order of the learned single Judge insofar as it related to the appointment of Administrator and the consequential directions issued are hereby set aside. The appeals are partly allowed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs. All Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.