TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (9) TMI 1032
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e. 3.These appeals have arisen under the following circumstances: a) One Laity Association of Church of South India (CSI) Madras Diocese, represented by its General Secretary and Vice President, filed a suit in C.S.No.295 of 2009 for declaration that the fifth defendant therein Rt.Rev.Dr.V.Devasagayam, cannot hold the post of Bishop of CSI, Madras Diocese, beyond 1.5.2009 and also for consequential reliefs along with the mandatory injunction to direct the defendants 2 and 3 therein to issue a direction to the fourth defendant in respect of the nomination of Bishopric candidates to the post of Bishop. In that suit, the plaintiff filed an application in O.A.No.329 of 2009 seeking interim injunction to restrain the fifth defendant referred to above, from holding the post of Bishop beyond 1.5.2009 and also an application in A.No.1561/2009 seeking for a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to commence election process. In that suit, pursuant to the orders of Court, summons were served upon the defendants. The Court recorded the statements of the defendants 1 and 2 therein that Synod would decide the issue relating to the continuance of the fifth defen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....id he do so by virtue of the letter in question; that the first respondent had not sought to take up the matter with the Synod; that the physical fitness and the willingness of the person to accept the office of bishop are two crucial factors to be taken into account for appointment to the said office; that the Synod is clothed with power and discretion to select and appoint a bishop and the post is not merely by election alone; that apart from that, there was no question of retirement in the case of the first respondent; that Synod has power to make rules and pass resolutions and take executive action; that the first respondent had no prima facie case; but the balance of convenience was with the appellants, and irreparable loss and hardship would be caused to them in the event of interim orders being passed against them; that the first respondent had no substantive right to the office after the expiry of the said period; that the first respondent was not entitled to continue till the age of 65 years on account of it being contrary to his appointment for 10 years, and hence the order of the learned Single Judge has got to be set aside. 5.Contrary to the above, the learned Senior....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has also confirmed the appointment. The same was also reported to the Moderator. In turn, the Moderator and the General Secretary have executed the certificate of confirmation in the name of the bishop appointed. The consecration of the plaintiff has also taken place. The parties are not in controversy as to the above factual position. 8.The only question that arose for consideration is whether the appointment of the first respondent/plaintiff bishop as made above was only for a period of 10 years ending with 1.5.2009 and thereafter he cannot continue as contended by the appellants' side or he could continue till he attains 65 years of age as contended by the plaintiff bishop. 9.The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants would submit that Rule 12(a) of Chapter V of the Constitution of the Church of South India stipulates that a bishop shall retire on the completion of 65 years of age; that the use of the words "shall retire" was with a specific purpose of prescribing the maximum or outer limit for holding the office and constituted a bar only to continuing beyond such period in cases where there was no restriction operating, and it did not mean "until" and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t bishop that he was appointed till his completion of the age of 65 as contemplated under the Rule and not for a period of 10 years as contended by the appellants. In the instant case, it is not in controversy that the plaintiff was duly appointed as bishop and also consecrated in the office. Nowhere in the entire Constitution it speaks about the restricted period of 10 years or any period. On the contrary it stipulates under Rule 12(a) "till the completion of his 65th year". When the nominations were made or elections conducted, it was also not for a stipulated period; but it should have been only for a period as envisaged under Rule 12(a). In support of the contention, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants placed reliance on different communications which emerged between the Church of South India and the plaintiff bishop. 12.The minutes of the meeting of the bishop's selection board of Madras Diocese met on 5.4.1999 at 4.00 P.M. at CSI Synod Centre reads as follows: "After preliminary discussion the candidates of the panel were interviewed. After prolonged consideration, considering all aspects relating to the candida....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and informed to the plaintiff bishop, and he also gave his consent in writing. Thereafter, the Synod has issued a certificate of election and appointment of the plaintiff for the Madras Diocese following which the act of consecration has also taken place as found in the documents. 17.It is true that in both the documents namely the certificate of election and appointment and also the document for consecration, the period of office of the plaintiff is not mentioned. Equally in the letter dated 9.4.1999 issued by the Church of South India to the members of the Synod Executive Committee along with the bio-data of the plaintiff Devasahayam and also the letter dated 28.4.1999 whereby the members of the Synod Executive Committee have expressed their willingness for the appointment of Devasahayam as the bishop in Madras Diocese, the term of office is not mentioned. 18.The learned Senior Counsel for the first respondent bishop pointing to all the documents would contend that even at the time of appointment, the period of office was not stated and hence when the plaintiff bishop was appointed, it was only till he attains the age of 65. Insofar as certificate of appointment and also t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ery day i.e., 24.4.1999, the CSI has addressed a communication to its Secretary wherein it has specifically stated that Devasahayam has been duly selected for appointment as bishop for a period of 10 years and it has come into effect from the date of the consecration. This communication is not disputed and it has also emanated from the CSI. While so, there cannot be another letter on the very day namely 24.4.1999 written by the Moderator to the plaintiff bishop that his retirement was at the completion of 65 years of age and his term of office cannot be limited by any order contrary to the provisions of the Constitution. Hence such a letter could not have been written the very day. That apart, the Moderator cannot write such a letter. Even assuming that the Moderator has written such a letter, during that time he could not extend the period stating that the retirement will be at the completion of 65 years of age since it was contrary to the earlier appointment and confirmation by the Synod. At this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that the said letter dated 24.4.1999 relied on by the first respondent/plaintiff bishop, does not refer to any decision of the Synod. It remains to....