The Kerala High Court on Tuesday directed the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), Group Centre, Thiruvananthapuram, to take over the Kothamangalam Marthoma Church and its movables if the High Court order directing the Ernakulam District Collector to take over the church was not complied with by January 8, 2021.
Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar issued the directive on a contempt of court petition filed by the Vicar of the Orthodox faction against the Collector for not complying with the directive.
The court ordered that it deemed appropriate that if the directives of the court are not complied with on or before January 8, 2021, "the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Group Centre, CRPF, Pallipuram, shall take over the church, its precincts and all its movable properties after removing all persons squatting inside the church premises and its compound and hold the same under his control until further orders.”
When the petition came up last time for the hearing, State Attorney K.V. Sohan appearing for the State government and the Collector had sought three months time to amicably settle the dispute.
The court observed that the reason for not giving effect to the directive of the court was that a mediation talk had been initiated at the instance of the Chief Minister and that the defeated parties, the Patriarch faction, had made all arrangements to obstruct the implementation of the directive. True, the material on record indicated that the Chief Minister had initiated a mediation process for an amicable settlement of the dispute between the two factions and that the process was on. However, the minutes of the meetings did not reveal that there was any understanding between the parties that the order of the court need not be implemented pending the talks.
There was absolutely no difficult in understanding the earnest efforts taken by the State government in arriving at an amicable solution. But, such proceedings could not automatically operate as an impediment in continuing the pending judicial proceedings, unless the parties to the proceedings agree for such a course.
The conduct of the Collector in not implementing the directive could be viewed only as wilful. Besides, there was absolutely no assurance that the directive would be given effect if further time was granted. “Needless to say, the court has to work out alternatives for giving effect to the order of the court and to maintain the rule of law,” the court added.
