JUDGMENT (Common Prayer: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act, to issue summons and punish the Contemnors/respondents herein under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for wilfully disobeying the order dated 26.11.2021 passed by this Court in C.M.A.(MD)No.619 of 2021.) Common Order 1. These Contempt Petitions have been filed to issue summons and punish the Contemners/respondents herein for wilfully disobeying the order dated 26.11.2021 passed by this Court in C.M.A.(MD)No.619 of 2021. SUB.A(MD)Nos.24 & 25 of 2022 : The Appellants in C.M.A. (MD)No.619 of 2021 have been filed these Sub-Applications to appoint Honourable Judge Administrator for supervising the functioning of the Church Council in administrating the TELC till the disposal of the suit in O.S.No.253 of 2020 on the file of the learned I Additional District Court, Trichy. 2. Heard on either side. Perused the material documents available on record. 3. The Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church by its Secretary has filed C.M.A.(MD)No.619 of 2021 on 26.11.2021 and the same was allowed on with certain directions. As per the order in C.M.A.(MD)No.619 of 2021, the period of Bishop has been ended on 14.01.2021. The other issues can be decided only in the suit. 4. But, after pronouncing the order on very next day, the Bishop/R-1 has convened a meeting and extend his age from 65 years to 67 years which was the main agenda. 5. The ingredients of Rule 161 of (C) of the Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church Rules, is extracted hereunder: “161. ELECTION PROCEDURE AND TENURE OF OFFICE OF THE BISHOP: (C) The Bishop shall retire on the 14th of January, after he has completed 65 years of age of ten years of service as Bishop, which ever is earlier. He shall not be given extension of service as Biship beyond the period mentioned above.” 6. Further, the paragraph Nos.14 to 16 stated in the order, dated 26.11.2021 in C.MA.(MD)No.619 of 2021 are extracted hereunder: “14. Now, the period of Bishop has also been completed. At this stage, whether he can invoke Rule 128(12) of Church Rules. 15. The 1st respondent has to establish Special Emergency warranted to invoke Rule 128(12). 16. After trial only, these issues can be decided in the suit. Now, the period of Bishop has also been completed. At this stage, whether he can invoke Rule 128(12) of Church Rules. 15. The 1st respondent has to establish Special Emergency warranted to invoke Rule 128(12). 16. After trial only, these issues can be decided in the suit. Already, by order, dated 19.03.2021 in A.S.No.18 of 2021 this Court has issued directions to the trial Court to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.253 of 2020 and complete the trial within a period of six months.” 7. All the issues are pending in the suit in O.S.No.253 of 2020, the Bishop has convened meeting on 27.11.2021 and passed resolution in his favour regarding all the issues involved in the suit. That too after this Court has passed an order in C.M.A.No.619 of 2021 as all the issues can be decided only after trial. The order also confirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court. 8. The resolution Nos.3 to 5, dated 26.11.2021 are extracted hereunder: “Resolution No:3 This Church Counci approves the resolutions passed by SCC (General Body of TELC) dated 10.11.2020 29 12 2000 and 05.01.2021 more particularly in extending the age of the all the clergies in the Church from 65 to 67. Resolution No.4: The Church Council approves the Emergency Circular of Bishop/ President, TELC dated 30.10.2020 issued by the Bishop President, TELC in invoking Rule 128(12) Hence the necessity arises to elect the new secretary to the Church Council, TELC Mr. R. Thanpapacham is elected as the Secretary Church Council Mr. A. Maher Antony and Mr. K Albert Inbaraj had not chosen to attend this meeting in spite of notice sent to them even by yesterday. Hereafter Mr A Maher Antony can continue as a Church Council member but can not claim to be the Secretary of the Church Council TELC and he shall not issue any notification or circular claiming to be the secretary Church Council, TELC. Resolution: 5: This Church Council record that in view of the order passed by the Honorable Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in OMA (MD) No. 619/2021 dated 26.11.2021, the Most Respected and Revered Bishop President TELC agrees to with draw Bishop President. Resolution: 5: This Church Council record that in view of the order passed by the Honorable Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in OMA (MD) No. 619/2021 dated 26.11.2021, the Most Respected and Revered Bishop President TELC agrees to with draw Bishop President. TELC Emergency Circular No 4/ 2020 Proclamation of Emergency in TELC dated 01.11.2020 by invoking Rule 194 of the Church Rule Hence Bishop / President, TELC Emergency Circular No. 4/ 2020/ Proclamation of Emergency in TELC dated 01.11.2020 issued by the Bishop/ President, TELC is withdrawn. Here after the Venerable Church Council is restored and it shall continue to discharge its function till the end of the Triennium (2019-2022)''. 9. The period of Bishop has been ended on 14.01.2021 and his age cannot be extended as per Rules. Only as a member till his period of member expired, he can act as per the decision of Church council. 10. But, as Bishop he convened the meeting without any rights. Some of the members have also attended the meeting and signed in the resolution which are against the findings of the order passed by this Court in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 11. So, the Bishop/R-1 and other members who had signed in the resolution wilfully committed disobedience of the order. R-1 to R-6 have signed in the resolutions by disobeying the Order of this Court. 12. The majority of Church Council (6 members) have signed in the resolutions. R-2 to R-6 were also colluded with R-1 and disobeyed the order of this Court. This resolutions clearly shows that the willful intention and negligence of R-1 to R-6. 13. When the suit is pending and interim order was also passed by this Court how R-1 convened the meeting on very next day of the order, passed resolutions and majority members have also signed. 14. So the resolution itself proved the disobedience of R-1 to R-6. 15. The Article 215 of the Constitution of India stated that, this Court shall be a Court of record and shall have all the powers of such a Court including the power to punish for contempt of itself. 16. The ingredients of Section 2(b) of Contempt of Court Rules, 1971 is extracted hereunder: “2. Definitions: In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, (b). 16. The ingredients of Section 2(b) of Contempt of Court Rules, 1971 is extracted hereunder: “2. Definitions: In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, (b). 'civil contempt' means wilful disobedience to any Judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a Court;”. 17. SUB.A(MD)Nos.24 & 25 of 2022 have been filed in the Contempt Petitions. It is beyond the scope of Contempt petition. 18. The relevant portion of the Judgment in Aseem Gupta, Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mumbai Vs. Bandu Bhauji Sidam and Others, is extracted hereunder: “7. About what is argued on crossing the limits of contempt jurisdiction by this Court, we must say the law is well settled on the proscriptions and prescriptions for granting relief in contempt jurisdiction and this Court being conscious of it, is aware that it cannot grant relief in contempt jurisdiction which is beyond the relief granted in the writ proceeding as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Director General, Youth Services and Sports Department and ors. vs. Sanjay Gupta and ors., reported in 2017 MhLJ Online (S.C.) 105 (2017) 4 SCC 571 . But, as stated earlier, this Court has not granted any relief which is beyond the relief granted in the writ petition and as such, the principle of law can be said to have found its expression in the order sought to be reviewed”. 19. The paragraph No.5 of the Judgment reported in (2004) 7 SCC 261 , Prithawai Nath Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, is extracted hereunder: “5. The Court exercising contempt jurisdiction cannot take upon itself power to decide the original proceedings in a manner not dealt with by the Court passing the judgment or order. ” As a Contempt Court, this Court cannot travel beyond the scope of the petition. 20. So, both the SUB.A(MD)Nos.24 & 25 of 2022 are dismissed. 21. Accordingly, these Contempt Petitions are allowed. R-1 to R-6 are the contemners who willfully disobeyed the order of this Court. All the resolutions, dated 27.11.2021 are cancelled since without any power R-1 has convened the meeting and passed resolutions for the matters involved in pending suit. 20. So, both the SUB.A(MD)Nos.24 & 25 of 2022 are dismissed. 21. Accordingly, these Contempt Petitions are allowed. R-1 to R-6 are the contemners who willfully disobeyed the order of this Court. All the resolutions, dated 27.11.2021 are cancelled since without any power R-1 has convened the meeting and passed resolutions for the matters involved in pending suit. The R-1 to R-6 are directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/-[Rupees Two Thousand Only], as Costs to the credit of Government of Tamil Nadu, CMPRF in IOB, Secretariat Branch, Chennai -9 (Account No.11720 10000 00070 , IFSC Code: IOBA0001172), on or before 09.06.2022. 22. Post the matter for reporting Compliance on 10.06.2022.