Kerala High Court
*Mr.George Joseph vs The State Of Kerala on 25 July, 2025
2025:KER:55201
W.P.(C).No.16282 of 2015
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU
FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 3RD SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 16282 OF 2015
PETITIONER:
* MR.GEORGE JOSEPH,
S/O. V.J.JOSEPH,
THE SECRETARY, MALANKARA SYRIAN CHRISTIAN
ASSOCIATION, DEVALOKAM ARAMANA, KOTTAYAM.
*(THE PETITIONER IS SUBSTITUTED AS
'MR.BIJU OOMMEN, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.OOMMEN,
THE SECRETARY, MALANKARA SYRIAN CHRISTIAN
ASSOCIATION, DEVALOKAM ARAMANA, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686
038" AS PER ORDER DATED 10.06.2025 IN IA
NO.1/2025 IN WP(C)NO.16282/2015.)
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE
SRI.P.PRIJITH
SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN 695001.
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682030.
2025:KER:55201
W.P.(C).No.16282 of 2015
2
3 THE SECRETARY
MALANKARA SURIYANI CHRISTIANI SABHA,
PATRIARCHAL CENTRE, PUTHENCRUZ.
BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.TONY AUGUSTINE
OTHER PRESENT:
ADV SAYED M THANGAL, GP- TAX
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 25.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:55201
W.P.(C).No.16282 of 2015
3
S.MANU, J.
----------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.16282 of 2015
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P12 proceedings of the
District Collector, Ernakulam dated 21.03.2015. The District
Collector decided to recoup the expenses incurred by the District
Administration in connection with observance of ‘Orma Perunnal’
during 2012 and 2013 in the Thrikkunnathu St.Mary’s Church
from the petitioner and the Secretary, Jacobite Sabha. This
decision was taken after hearing the petitioner and also the
Secretary, Jacobite Sabha in compliance with the direction
issued by this Court in Review Petitions filed by them in W.P.
(C)Nos.18489/2014 and 18516/2014.
2. There is a long pending dispute regarding the
ownership and administration of Thrikkunnathu St.Mary’s
Church, Aluva between two factions of Syrian Christians,
2025:KER:55201
W.P.(C).No.16282 of 2015
4
namely, patriarch and orthodox. On 25 th and 26th of January
every year, memorial prayers are conducted in the church. On
some occasions, untoward incidents happened during the ‘Orma
Perunnal’ because of the disputes between Patriarch and
Orthodox factions. Maintenance of law and order became a
matter of grave concern during the ‘Orma Perunnal’ every year.
During the ‘Orma Perunnal’ held in several years, orders were
passed by this Court to facilitate the smooth conduct of the
‘Perunnal’. The District Administration and police machinery
have been involved in conducting the event every year since the
disputes gave rise to a law and order situation.
3. Exts.P4, P5, P6, P7 and P8 are orders issued by this
Court in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2013 and 2014 regarding
conducting of the ‘Perunnal’. Directions were issued by this
Court to the Civil Administration and Police to take necessary
steps to ensure smooth conducting of the ‘Perunnal’ without any
disputes and frictions.
2025:KER:55201
W.P.(C).No.16282 of 2015
5
4. Expenses incurred by the District Administration in
connection with conducting of the ‘Perunnal’ were equally born
by the factions during the years 2009, 2010 and 2011.
Ext.R2(a) minutes of a meeting held at Collectorate, Ernakulam
on 16.01.2012 shows that the Collector directed both factions to
pay in equal shares the expense incurred in installing security
measures during 2011. Barricades and CCTV network were
erected and installed.
5. W.P.(C)Nos.18489 & 18516/2015 were filed by the
contractors engaged by the District Administration for erecting
barricades around the church in connection with ‘Orma Perunnal’
of the years 2012 and 2013 as the expenses were not disbursed
to them by the District Collector. By a common judgment dated
27.10.2014 this Court directed the District Collector to disburse
the amounts due to the petitioners. Secretaries of the disputing
factions were impleaded in the writ petitions as additional
respondents. This Court made it clear that it will be open to the
2025:KER:55201
W.P.(C).No.16282 of 2015
6
District Collector to recover the amount from them. Further it
was directed that if the recovery of the amount is not possible
within the time limit of two months fixed, State shall pay the
amount due to the petitioners and take steps to recover the
amount from the additional respondents. The additional
respondents did not appear despite service of notice.
6. Though the rival factions did not choose to appear
before this Court they later filed separate review petitions in
both cases. They disputed the liability. This Court disposed of all
review petitions by order dated 15.01.2015. Judgment in the
writ petitions was reviewed to the extent it directed the District
Collector to recover the amount paid to the writ petitioners from
the review petitioners. The following direction was issued:-
“There shall be a direction to the District Collector
to hear the review petitioners before proceeding
further with the recovery proceedings and to pass
appropriate orders. Recovery will depend upon the
orders to be passed by the District Collector after
hearing the review petitioners. Therefore, the
2025:KER:55201
W.P.(C).No.16282 of 2015
7review petitioners shall appear before the District
Collector on 30/01/2015 at 11 a.m. Thereafter,
they shall submit their explanation. The District
Collector shall pass appropriate orders thereon
within a further period of three weeks. If it is found
by the District Collector that the review petitioners
are liable to pay the amount, necessarily, the
District Collector is free to proceed against the
review petitioners in accordance with the Revenue
Recovery Act. However, till a final decision is taken,
no action shall be initiated against the review
petitioners. It is made clear that if the District
Collector is intending to proceed against the review
petitioners, necessarily, the same shall only be
after duly complying with the provisions of the
Revenue Recovery Act.”
7. The District Collector heard the representatives of the
rival factions in compliance with the direction issued by this
Court in the review petitions and passed the impugned order
dated 21.03.2015 thereafter.
8. Sri.Martin Jose, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner vehemently submitted that liability to bear the
2025:KER:55201
W.P.(C).No.16282 of 2015
8
expenses incurred by the District Administration cannot be
fastened on the petitioner. He made submissions regarding the
long pending dispute between two factions for the control of
Thrikkunnathu church. He submitted that the rights of the
petitioner were upheld by the civil court long ago and the rival
faction was trying to interfere in the affairs of the church,
ignoring the binding judgments of civil courts. The learned
counsel submitted that issues arose in connection with the
conducting of the ‘Orma Perunnal’ on account of illegal
interference by the rival faction. It was further submitted by the
learned counsel that the petitioner did not seek any
arrangement or protection during the relevant years, 2012 and
2013. The petitioner was not responsible for any tensed
situation and was not involved in any activity resulting in
deterioration of law and order. The learned counsel submitted
that the rival faction was creating troubles and therefore if at all
the District Administration had any right to claim reimbursement
2025:KER:55201
W.P.(C).No.16282 of 2015
9
of expenses, only the trouble making faction was liable to bear
the burden. The learned counsel submitted, by referring to
various provisions of the Kerala Police Act 2011, that the
demand for reimbursement of expenses made by the District
Collector was not supported by any provision of law. He also
contended that in the impugned Ext.P12 order, the Collector has
not pointed out any provision of law enabling the District
Administration to raise such a demand. He further submitted
that the petitioner’s faction had also shared the expenses on
some previous occasions as it had approached the Court on
those occasions seeking directions to the District Administration
and Police. Learned counsel referred to the judgment of a
Division Bench of this Court in District Superintendent of
Police v. George [2000 (1) KLT 628] and submitted that the
claim raised in Ext.P12 is not sustainable in the eye of law. He,
hence, contended that the impugned order is liable to be set
aside.
2025:KER:55201
W.P.(C).No.16282 of 2015
10
9. Learned Government Pleader Sri.Tony Augustine
submitted that necessary precautions were taken by the District
Administration and Police during 2012 and 2013 for smooth
conducting of the ‘Orma Perunnal’. Contractors were engaged
for erecting barricades and ensuring CCTV surveillance. He
pointed out that the rival factions were permitted to participate
in the Perunnal on conditions. Time slots were fixed for each
faction. It was also stipulated that the devotees shall be
permitted to enter the disputed premises only in small groups.
There was restriction with respect to spending of time in the
church premises by devotees. Ensuring that those conditions
were followed and averting tension was a serious task
undertaken by the District Administration and Police. Erecting
barricades and installing CCTVs were necessary under such
circumstances. He pointed out that the expenses incurred in this
connection were shared equally by the rival factions in 2009,
2010 and 2011 though under protest. He pointed out that in
2025:KER:55201
W.P.(C).No.16282 of 2015
11
Ext.R2(a) minutes, it is specifically recorded that the District
Collector directed both factions to equally bear the expenses
incurred in 2011. He pointed out that in 2012 and 2013 also,
indisputably the District Administration and Police took care of
the situation effectively by deploying sufficient number of police
personnel and other officers and also by making crowd control
arrangements including barricades and CCTV surveillance. The
learned Government Pleader submitted that in view of Sections
62 and 82 of the Kerala Police Act 2011, the District
Administration was perfectly justified in directing the rival
factions to reimburse the expenses. He also relied on judgment
of Division Bench of this Court in District Superintendent of
Police v. George and contended that the recovery of expenses
by obstructionists was approved by this Court in the said
judgment. The learned Government Pleader submitted that in
the facts and circumstances of the case at hand both factions
can be considered as obstructionists as they were causing
2025:KER:55201
W.P.(C).No.16282 of 2015
12
hindrance for smooth conducting of the ‘Orma Perunnal’ because
of rivalry. He submitted that the state exchequer cannot be
burdened for such purposes and the District Administration was
therefore perfectly justified in demanding that the rival factions
shall bear the expenses equally. He also contended that the
petitioner had contributed towards the expenses incurred during
several years. He further submitted that a representative of the
petitioner was also present in the meeting conducted in 2012 as
discernible from Ext.R2(a) minutes. No protest was raised
against the direction of the District Collector to remit the
expenses for the year mentioned therein. Therefore, the learned
Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner cannot be
permitted to refuse to pay the share of expenses. He contended
that the writ petition is without any merit.
10. It is an indisputable fact that tension prevailed in
connection with the ‘Orma Perunnal’ in Thrikkunnathu St.Mary’s
Church for long. Even now no quietus has been achieved in the
2025:KER:55201
W.P.(C).No.16282 of 2015
13
dispute between the rival factions of the community. Exts.P1 to
P9 orders and judgments reveal the history of the rivalry and
interference by the courts on various occasions. For several
years the ‘Orma Perunnal’ was conducted smoothly only on
account of appropriate directions issued by this Court.
Repetition of untoward incidents during the Perunnal was
avoided with the vigilant intervention by the District
Administration and Police machinery in compliance with the
orders issued by this Court from time to time. It cannot be
disputed that without the intervention of the District
Administration and Police the Perunnal could not have been
conducted smoothly, permitting all believers to participate in the
prayers.
11. It is to be noted that the petitioner had also shared
the expenses incurred by the District Administration earlier.
However, the petitioner refuses to share the expenses with
respect to 2012 and 2013. The other rival faction has paid half
2025:KER:55201
W.P.(C).No.16282 of 2015
14
of the expenses incurred by the District Administration.
12. I note that arguments advanced by the learned
counsel for the petitioner was mainly focused on the law
regarding bearing of expenses for police protection. He
submitted that none of the provisions of the Kerala Police Act
permits the Collector to pass an order in the nature of Ext.P12.
He also made reference to the judgment of Division Bench of
this Court in District Superintendent of Police v. George
[2000 (1) KLT 628]. In the case at hand, the District Collector
has demanded that both rival factions of the community shall
share the expenses incurred for arranging barricades. The said
demand cannot be equated with a demand for payment of cost
for affording police protection. Hence, I find the arguments
advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner referring to
the provisions of the Police Act and the judgment mentioned
above unacceptable in the context of the present case.
2025:KER:55201
W.P.(C).No.16282 of 2015
15
13. The learned counsel for the petitioner had
vehemently submitted that the right of the petitioner’s faction
was declared by the civil court and therefore the rival faction
had no right to interfere with the affairs of the church. He
submitted that the responsibility of tense situation arising on
the occasion of ‘Orma Perunnal’ every year was solely
attributable to the rival faction and compelling the petitioner’s
faction to bear the expenses was unreasonable. I do not find it
necessary, in the case at hand, to make any observation
regarding the rights of the petitioner’s faction or the rival
faction.
14. Obviously, tension arose in connection with the
conducting of ‘Orma Perunnal’ as neither faction was prepared
to accommodate the other even on an occasion of remembering
high priests buried in the seminary. Hence I find merit in the
contention of the learned Government Pleader that the
petitioner faction cannot be permitted to contend that it had no
2025:KER:55201
W.P.(C).No.16282 of 2015
16
responsibility in tense situation being created.
15. It is discernible from the common order in the review
petitions produced as Ext.P10 that this Court had directed the
District Collector to consider the issue after hearing the review
petitioners and further it was directed that in case the District
Collector found that the review petitioners were liable to pay the
amount it will be open to the Collector to proceed against the
review petitioners in accordance with the Revenue Recovery Act.
The Collector thereafter considered the matter in great detail
and finally concluded that the expenses incurred was not for any
public purpose but for averting factional feud between the rival
parties. The Collector also observed that in case adequate
security was not provided the situation would have escalated to
a volatile situation. Thus, the Collector concluded that the
amount shall be recovered from the parties. I do not find any
grave error in the said view of the District Collector. The District
Administration was actually burdened by the factional feud. As
2025:KER:55201
W.P.(C).No.16282 of 2015
17
directed by this Court the Collector considered the issue
comprehensively. The other faction has paid the amounts. In
my view, the petitioner faction also ought to have paid their
share gracefully instead of approaching this Court again in the
above writ petition. In the facts and circumstances of this case,
discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Art.226 of the
Constitution need not be exercised.
In view of the above discussion, the Writ Petition is
dismissed.
Sd/-
S.MANU
JUDGE
skj
2025:KER:55201
W.P.(C).No.16282 of 2015
18
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16282/2015
PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1- TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN O.S.NO. 5/81 OF
DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM DATED 31-3-2003.
EXHIBIT P2- TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATD 10-4-2003 IN CMP NO.
2098/2003 IN A.S.NO. 262 OF 2003 OF THIS
COURT.
EXHIBIT P3- TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN O.S. 5 OF 1981 FILED
I.A.NO. 2196/2001 BEFORE THE SPECIAL COURT
(DISTRICT COURT) DATED 3-8-2002.
EXHIBIT P4- TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN WPC NO. 2684/2009
DATED 23-01-09 OF THIS COURT.
EXHIBIT P5- TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN I.A.NO. 248/2009 IN
A.S.NO. 262/2003 DATED 22-1-2010.
EXHIBIT P6- TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN I.A.NO. 226/2011 IN
A.S.NO. 262/2003 DATED 24-1-2011 OF THIS
COURT.
EXHIBIT P7- TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN I.A. 166/2013 IN
A.S.NO. 262 OF 2003 DATED 23-1-2013 OF THIS
COURT.
EXHIBIT P8- TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN I.A. 172/2014 IN
A.S.NO. 262 OF 2003 DATED 24-1-2014 OF THIS
COURT.
EXHIBIT P9- TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 27-10-2014 IN WPC
NO. 18489 AND 18516 OF 2014 OF THIS COURT.
EXHIBIT P10- TRUE COPY OF COMMON ORDER IN R.P.NO. 1040/14
AND CONNECTED REVIEW PETITIONS
DATED 15-1-2015.
EXHIBIT P11- TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN EXPLANATION
DATED 30-1-2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT P12- TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DATED 21-03-2015 OF
2ND RESPONDENT.