JUDGMENT : N. NAGARESH, J. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.25919/2025 is the Administrative Committee of South Kerala Diocese of the Church of South India (CSI). The writ petition has been filed seeking police protection for the smooth functioning of the Administrative Committee within LMS Compound, Palayam. 2. W.P.(C) No.32108/2025 has been filed by the 2nd respondent in W.P.(C) No.25919/2025, who is the first plaintiff in OS No.166/2021 of the II Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The 2 nd respondent in W.P.(C) No.25919/2025 is a member of the South Kerala Diocese (SKD) of the CSI. The 2 nd respondent also seeks police protection for the election to be held by respondents 6 to 8 as provided in Ext.P1 judgment. The parties and exhibits are referred to in this judgment as they are described/marked in W.P.(C) No.25919/2025. Page 7 3. In W.P.(C) No.25919/2025, the petitioner states that in the year 2020, the Executive Committee of the CSI Synod appointed a new Committee for the SKD as per Ext.P1. Respondents 2 and 3, who were members of the expelled Committee, filed OS No.166/2021 seeking to declare that the Administrative Committee appointed as per Ext.P1 has no authority to continue. According to the petitioners, in the meantime, the Committee was reconstituted as per Ext.P3. 4. Various persons filed a number of Suits in the Hon'ble High Court of Madras against certain decision taken by the officers of the Synod of CSI. A Single Bench of the High Court of Madras declined their prayer for appointment of Interim Administrator for CSI. In appeal, a Division Bench of the Court appointed a Committee of Administrators to take over the administration of CSI, as per Ext.P4. Consequently, a Committee of Administrators consisting of Justice R. Balasubramanian (Rtd.) and Justice V. Bharathidasan (Retd.) took charge of the CSI. Page 8 5. The said Administrators appointed Rev. Dr. Royce Manoj Victor as Bishop in Charge of the SKD. Mr. K.G. Simon was appointed as Administrative Secretary. The Bishop in Charge immediately cancelled the process of election for SKD. Aggrieved by Ext.P4 Division Bench judgment of the Madras High Court, Special Leave to Appeal Nos.9079-9081 of 2024 were filed in the Hon’ble Apex Court. The Apex Court initially passed Ext.P7 interim order directing that Administrators appointed by the High Court shall not take any decision regarding election to or administration of the CSI. Page 9 6. Aggrieved by Ext.P4 Division Bench judgment of the Madras High Court, Special Leave to Appeal Nos.9079-9081 of 2024 were filed in the Hon’ble Apex Court. The Apex Court initially passed Ext.P7 interim order directing that Administrators appointed by the High Court shall not take any decision regarding election to or administration of the CSI. Page 9 6. After the said Ext.P7 interim order, the Sub Collector, Thiruvananthapuram held a reconciliation meeting between two factions of the SKD concerning the administration of the LMS Compound. Both parties agreed to maintain status quo as per Ext.P8. However, the Bishop appointed by the Committee of Administrators filed W.P.(C) No.21921/2024 to quash Ext.P8 settlement. The writ petition was dismissed as per Ext.P9 judgment. In appeal (W.A. No.917/2024), the Division Bench did not interfere 7. The office bearers of the SKD filed W.P.(C) No.19179/2024 and W.P.(C) No.19592/2024. This Court did not grant any order and left the petitioners to seek necessary clarification from the Apex Court as per Ext.P11 judgment. The Hon’ble Apex Court found in SLP(C) No.8229/2024 that there is no necessity to clarify its order, as per Ext.P12. 8. Later, the Hon’ble Apex Court delivered Ext.P13 judgment in SLP Nos.9079-9081 of 2024 upholding the election held to the posts of Deputy Moderator, General Secretary and Treasurer of the Synod of the CSI, subject to the outcome of the Suit pending before the Madras High Court. Thereupon, the Synod office bearers appointed the petitioner-Administrative Committee for SKD, as per Ext.P14. The present Committee took steps to complete the election process and an Election Officer was appointed as per Ext.P15. Page 10 9. While the matter stood so, the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram delivered judgment in OS No.166/2021 on 21.06.2025 allowing the reliefs prayed for, including the appointment of Administrators to administer SKD. Though the petitioners applied for carbon copy / certified copy of the judgment for filing appeal, before issuance of even the copy of judgment, there were attempts on the part of certain persons to take over the administration ousting the present Administrative Committee. Page 11 10. The petitioner stated that the present Administrative Committee was duly appointed pursuant to Ext.P13 judgment of the Apex Court. The Sub Court has not recognised Ext.P13 judgment and has appointed another Administrative Committee, which is highly illegal and arbitrary. Page 11 10. The petitioner stated that the present Administrative Committee was duly appointed pursuant to Ext.P13 judgment of the Apex Court. The Sub Court has not recognised Ext.P13 judgment and has appointed another Administrative Committee, which is highly illegal and arbitrary. Unless the petitioner is given a breathing time to obtain certified copy of the judgment in OS.166/2021 and approach the appellate court and if in the meanwhile they are ousted from the administration, it will be grave injustice. 11. When W.P.(C) No.25919/2025 came up for admission on 15.07.2025, this Court passed an interim order of status quo with respect to the administration and directed that the police shall ensure that there is no law and order problem. 12. Respondents 2 and 3 filed a counter affidavit. Respondents 2 and 3 submitted that in OS No.166/2021 , the Sub Court has found that appointment of the Administrative Committee is unlawful and the Court has issued a permanent prohibitory injunction preventing the Committee from exercising any function. On 22.04.2024, the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP No.9250/2024 directed that the Administrators appointed by order dated 12.04.2024 shall not take any decision regarding election or administration of the Synod. After the judgment of the Apex Court, Mr. Justice V. Bharathidasan (Retd.) took charge as the Election Officer of the Moderator. Respondents 2 and 3 submitted that the CSI Synod has no right, title or authority to appoint an Administrative Committee in SKD. Page 12 13. The 2 nd respondent filed W.P.(C) No.32108/2025. In the said writ petition, the 2 nd respondent challenged the action of the petitioner concerning the administration of SKD. The 2 nd respondent stated that in OS No.166/2021 , the Sub Court has held that the Synod's decision to dissolve the duly elected Diocesan Council and appoint an Administrative Committee, is illegal. The Sub Court accordingly appointed three retired District Judges to conduct election. Pag 14. After obtaining an interim order in W.P.(C) No.25919/2025, the petitioner has now issued an election notification appointing an election officer. The petitioner has misrepresented before this Court that the Hon’ble Apex Court has directed SKD elections. The Apex Court has merely upheld the Madras High Court's decision relating to Synod Moderator only. The 2 nd respondent therefore sought to provide adequate police protection for the election to be held by respondents 6 to 8 (in W.P.(C) No.32108/2025). The petitioner has misrepresented before this Court that the Hon’ble Apex Court has directed SKD elections. The Apex Court has merely upheld the Madras High Court's decision relating to Synod Moderator only. The 2 nd respondent therefore sought to provide adequate police protection for the election to be held by respondents 6 to 8 (in W.P.(C) No.32108/2025). The 2 nd respondent further sought to stay further election process initiated at the instance of the petitioner. 15. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the present Administrative Committee was duly appointed by the CSI pursuant to Ext.P13 judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court. Page 14 The Sub Court has delivered judgment without adverting to the judgment of the Apex Court and hence the judgment of the Sub Court is per incuriam. The said judgment cannot be used as a shield to abort election proceedings initiated by the petitioner. The Hon'ble High Court of Madras has upheld the election of Deputy Moderator, General Secretary and the Treasurer of the Synod of CSI. It is the said CSI which has appointed the present Committee. The present Committee is therefore entitled to proceed with the democratic process of election. The Sub Court in OS No.166/2021 has not directed to conduct elections. 16. The 2 nd respondent, on the other hand, argued that the present Administrative Secretary is having many criminal cases against him and has openly declared that he will not permit any election pursuant to the judgment of the Sub Court. The petitioner has not filed any statutory appeal against the judgment of the Sub Court. The election proposed to be conducted by the petitioner is therefore illegal and unsustainable. Page 15 17. The petitioner has declared election when the Suit was pending and when the Sub Court was hearing the matter finally. There are no elected Committees in the constituent Churches since the year 2020. The petitioner has not published any voters list for conducting election. Large number of genuine voters are excluded. Any election by the petitioner will be against elementary democratic values. The interim order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.25919/2025 is liable to be vacated. Respondents 6 to 8 should be given police protection to conduct election as ordered by the Sub Court. 18. Large number of genuine voters are excluded. Any election by the petitioner will be against elementary democratic values. The interim order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.25919/2025 is liable to be vacated. Respondents 6 to 8 should be given police protection to conduct election as ordered by the Sub Court. 18. I have heard the respective Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the Station House Officer and Senior Counsel appearing for additional respondents 5 and 6. I have also heard the learned counsel appearing for the 4 th respondent in W.P.(C) No.32108/2025. Page 16 19. Both the writ petitions are filed seeking police protection, W.P.(C) No.25919/2025 for restraining the respondents from interfering with the administration of the present Administrative Committee of SKD and W.P.(C) No.32108/2025 for the election to be held by respondents 6 to 8 as provided in the judgment of the II Additional Sub Judge, Thiruvananthapuram in OS No.166/2021 . 20. The issue involved is regarding the administration of and election to the SKD. The CSI and SKD being private entities, not falling within the purview of “State” or “Instrumentality of the State”, any dispute relating to administration or election is to be adjudicated by competent civil courts. This Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , cannot venture adjudication of disputed questions of facts involved in the writ petitions. However, when prayers are made for police protection or for maintenance of law and order, this Court will be justified appreciating the facts of the cases for the limited purpose of grant or refusal of police protection. Page 17 21. The present writ petitions pose complex issues as there are various judgments delivered by civil courts, writ courts and the Hon’ble Apex Court relating to administration of CSI and SKD. In fact, the legality of Administrative Committees of CSI as well as SKD is in question to a considerable extent. 22. As far as SKD is concerned, the Synod of CSI decided to appoint a new Committee for the SKD on 07.12.2020. The Synod, as per Ext.P1 letter dated 08.12.2020, appointed a new Administrative Committee for carrying out the affairs of the SKD. Questioning the authority of the said Administrative Committee, respondents 2 and 3, who are members of the SKD, filed OS No.166/2021 before the II Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The Synod, as per Ext.P1 letter dated 08.12.2020, appointed a new Administrative Committee for carrying out the affairs of the SKD. Questioning the authority of the said Administrative Committee, respondents 2 and 3, who are members of the SKD, filed OS No.166/2021 before the II Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram. While the Suit was pending, the Synod reconstituted the Administrative Committee of SKD as per Ext.P3 appointment letter dated 01.09.2021. 23. During the same time, Suits were filed in the Hon'ble High Court of Madras against various decisions taken by the Synod of CSI. The plaintiffs therein challenged the election of Moderator in the proceedings held on 11.10.2020. A learned Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras pronounced a common order on 05.09.2023 in AS Nos.54-57 of 2023 and connected cases. The learned Single Judge interfered with the election of Moderator of the CSI. In order to conduct election of the Moderator of the Synod for the Triennium 2023-2026, Justice V. Bharathidasan, a Retired Judge was appointed as Election Officer. The learned Single Judge, however, declined the request for appointment of an Interim Administrator, perhaps because a Deputy Moderator, General Secretary and Treasurer were in office. Ext.P5 (in W.P.(C) No.32108/2025) is the common order dated 05.09.2023 of the learned Single Judge. 24. Plaintiffs in those Suits approached the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras filing intra court appeal. In the said appeal, a Division Bench of the High Court appointed a Committee of Administrators to take over the administration of CSI and its Trust Associations as per Ext.P4 judgment dated 12.04.2024. The said Committee appointed Bishop of Malabar Diocese, Rev. Dr. Royce Manoj Victor as the Bishop in Charge of the SKD. The Administrators appointed an Administrative Committee for SKD with Mr. K.G. Simon as Administrative Secretary as per Ext.P5 letter dated 03.05.2024. On the very same day, the newly appointed Bishop in Charge cancelled the entire process of election, as per Ext.P6 Circular dated 03.05.2024. Page 20 25. Ext.P4 common judgment delivered by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court was challenged in the Apex Court filing Special Leave to Appeal Nos.9079-9081 of 2024. The Hon’ble Apex Court passed Ext.P7 interim order dated 22.05.2024 directing that the Administrators appointed by the Division Bench shall not take any decision with regard to the holding of election or administration of CSI till next hearing. 26. The Hon’ble Apex Court passed Ext.P7 interim order dated 22.05.2024 directing that the Administrators appointed by the Division Bench shall not take any decision with regard to the holding of election or administration of CSI till next hearing. 26. The Hon’ble Apex Court disposed of SLP Nos.9079-9081 of 2024 upholding the election of office bearers of CSI including Deputy Moderator, General Secretary and Treasurer of the Synod. The Apex Court quashed the order of the Division Bench appointing Committee of Administrators for CSI, as per Ext.P13 judgment. 27. As the Hon’ble Apex Court interfered with Ext.P4 Division Bench judgment of the High Court of Madras, the judgment of the Single Bench of the Madras High Court (Ext.P5 in W.P.(C) No.32108/2025) revived. The present Administrative Committee, who is the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.25919/2025 was appointed by the CSI after Ext.P13 judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court. The constitution of that Committee has not been successfully challenged. On appointment, the petitioner took steps to complete the election process in coordination with the Election Officer. Page 21 28. The Synod office bearers by Ext.P15 order dated 16.05.2025 appointed Rev. Dr. Malayil Sabu K. Cherian, Bishop of Madhya Kerala as the Election Officer for the SKD with a team of nine persons including a Retired District Judge to assist him in the process of election for the remaining Triennium 2024-2027. 29. At that stage, the II Additional Sub Judge, Thiruvananthapuram delivered Ext.P20 judgment in OS No.166/2021 declaring that Ext.P1 decision of the Synod dated 08.12.2020 is illegal and the Committee appointed under Ext.P1 has no jurisdiction to manage the 1 st defendant. The II Additional Sub Judge appointed three Retired District Judges as Administrators of the SKD till the duly appointed Diocesan Council with Bishop assumes charge. The persons/authorities, whoever may be in possession, were directed to handover key to the Administrators at LMS Compound on the day of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Director General of Police was directed to provide necessary police protection to the three Administrators and other officers for the smooth functioning of the administration and the management of SKD. Page 22 30. The Director General of Police was directed to provide necessary police protection to the three Administrators and other officers for the smooth functioning of the administration and the management of SKD. Page 22 30. Now, the situation prevailing is that the present Administrative Committee which is the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.25919/2025 is in office pursuant to the revival of Ext.P5 (in W.P.(C) No.32108/2025) judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Madras, but the II Additional Sub Judge has appointed three Administrators to administer SKD. The challenge in OS No.166/2021 was against a Committee appointed on 08.12.2020 as per to Ext.P1. It is the constitution of the said Committee which is declared as illegal by the Additional Sub Court. Page 23 31. It is to be noted that the constitution of the said Committee has undergone changes subsequently during the pendency of OS No.166/2021 . On 01.09.2021, as per Ext.P3 letter, the Synod of CSI has appointed a reconstituted Administrative Committee for the SKD. Even thereafter, subsequent to Ext.P13 judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the Synod office bearers under the Deputy Moderator Dr. K. Ruben Mark, General Secretary Mr. Fernandus Rathina Raja and Treasurer Professor Vimal Sukumar took charge as the Administrative Committee as per Ext.P14 communication dated 16.05.2025 of the CSI. It is to be noted that a Synod Committee is in place for the CSI subsequent to the election conducted by Justice Bharathidasan, who was appointed as Administrator as per Ext.P5 judgment (in W.P.(C) No.32108/2025) of the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Madras. Page 24 32. It is without a detailed appreciation of the subsequent developments including Ext.P13 judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court that the Additional Sub Court has delivered Ext.P20 judgment. The petitioner has issued Ext.P23 Triennial Election Notification 2024-2027 on 11.08.2025. Though respondents 2 and 3 have challenged Ext.P23 Triennial Election Notification (Ext.P3 in W.P.(C) No.32108/2025), it will not be proper for this Court to adjudicate on the legality of the said Election Notification in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India . 33. The petitioner has issued Ext.P23 Triennial Election Notification 2024-2027 on 11.08.2025. Though respondents 2 and 3 have challenged Ext.P23 Triennial Election Notification (Ext.P3 in W.P.(C) No.32108/2025), it will not be proper for this Court to adjudicate on the legality of the said Election Notification in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India . 33. In the afore facts of the case, the writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions:- Page 25 (i) The interim status quo order dated 15.07.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.25919/2025 shall remain in force for a period of 90 days (appeal period) from the date of Ext.P20 judgment dated 08.07.2025 of the II Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram in OS No.166/2021 . (ii) The prayer in W.P.(C) No.32018/2025 for police protection for the election to be held by respondents 6 to 8 is declined as the Additional Sub Judge has already directed to provide necessary police protection and it will be up to the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.32108/2025 to get that order executed through appropriate proceedings subject to review/appeals if any that may be preferred by any parties against the judgment in OS No.166/2021 . Page 26 (iii) The interim order dated 25.08.2025 in W.P.(C) No.32108/2025 will stand vacated. (iv) Observations and findings in this judgment are for the purpose of grant/denial of police protection and any such observations shall not affect the pending or future civil proceedings in respect of the disputes between the parties.