Madrasdated High Court · 2025

O.A. No.841 of 2025 and A. No.4157 of 2025 inC.S. No.189 of 2025S. Sanoj Shalom...Respondents / Defendants[in both applications] PRAYER IN O.A. No.841 of 2025: This Original Application has been filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of Original Side rules read with Order XXXIX Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code praying to grant an ad interim injunction restraining the respondents from proceeding with the election for the circles of the three synods of the 1st respondent on 23.08.2025, 30.08.2025 and 06.09.2025, pending disposal of the above Suit.PRAYER IN A. No.4157 of 2025: This Original Application has been filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of Original Side rules read with Section 94(E) Order XXVI Rule 10(B) and Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, praying to appoint a Commission to conduct the election to the circles, synods and the 1st respondent from the threshold as per the registered Constitution and bylaw of the 1st respondent, pending disposal of the above Suit.Page No.2 of 21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis O.A. No.841 of 2025 and A. No.4157 of 2025 inC.S. No.189 of 2025For Petitioner:Mr. V. Anand[in both applications]For Respondents:Mr. Ravikumar Paul, Senior Counsel.[in both applications]For M/s Paul and PaulCOMMON ORDERThis Original application has been filed by the applicant to grant an ad interim injunction restraining the respondents from proceeding with the election for the circles of the three synods of the 1st respondent on 23.08.2025, 30.08.2025 and 06.09.2025, pending disposal of the above Suit.2. According to the applicant, he is the Plantiff in the main Suit and also he is the Joint Secretary of the Ambur Synod of the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent is a registered Society governed by the registered constittution and bylaw. The1st resondent is comprised of three Synods by names Ambur Synod, Nagercoil Synod and Trivandrum Synod, each of these 3 Synods is Page No.3 of 21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis O.A. No.841 of 2025 and A. No.4157 of 2025 inC.S. No.189 of 2025comprised of five circles each. Each of the circles comprised of several varying numbers of Churches otherwise called as congregations. There are also pastorates. The structure of the 1st respondent is a confederation. The office of the executive Committee of circles, synods and 1st respondent are elected for a triennium namely 3 years. In the year 2022, the election was conducted by the Administrator appointed by this Court and last election was held on 30.10.2022 and the present office bearers would not have any legal authority to hold the posts after 30.10.2025. The respondents 2 to 5 were appointed by the 1st respondent as Chief Election Officer and Synod Election Officers respectitvely. The 2nd respondent is not competent to hold the post as per Section 22(a)(b) of the Constitution, as he completed 70 years. As far as the respondents 3 to 5 are concerned, they shall be appointed by the 1st respondent after considering the three names proposed by the executive committee of the three synods, selecting one each from 3 synods as Election Officer of the concerned synod. The above said procedure has not been Page No.4 of 21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis O.A. No.841 of 2025 and A. No.4157 of 2025 inC.S. No.189 of 2025followed and the respondents 3 to 5 were appointed at the whims of the office bearers. The respondents 2 to 5 are referred to in the constitution as the Electoral College. The said Electoral College should be constituted at least one year prior to the proposed Convention and elections. Therefore, the respondents 2 to 5 ought to have been appointed before 31.08.2024. But they were appointed on 09.10.2024. 2.1. Section 17 of the Constitution prescribed for conducting election in the 1st respondent society. But those procedures have not been followed. The congregations delegates / representatives list sent by the respective congregations to the respective synod executive committee, were not at all placed before the credentials committee due to the manipulation of the present office bearers. Thereafter, a list was published, then a revised list was published and thereafter, a revised final list was published. Till date the circle convention date has not been fixed by the respective synod executive Page No.5 of 21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis O.A. No.841 of 2025 and A. No.4157 of 2025 inC.S. No.189 of 2025committee of the three synods. The list of the synod nominees and delegates have not so far been published. Therefore, they breached the rules. Immediately after the appointment of the electoral college, the Managing Committee of the 1st defendant should intimate the electroral college to commence the process of election right earnest, but no such intimation to the Electoral College by the Managing Committee has been given. The delay in deciding the eligible pastorates that could participate by sending delegates as voters representing the respective churches, by itself strikes at the foundational adherence to the registered constitution and bylaws of the 1st defendant, democratic principles and honesty. The entire election process should be completed one month prior to the declaration of the elected representatives namely October 2025. The list of delegates of the churches provided by several churches were tampered and modified to suit the office bearers. The list of voters and contestants for synod and church council has not been published along with that of circles, deliberately to avoid members Page No.6 of 21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis O.A. No.841 of 2025 and A. No.4157 of 2025 inC.S. No.189 of 2025from knowing the contestants and voters for those elections. Therefore, the applicants have filed these applications. If the applications are not allowed, the applicants will be put to serious prejudice, irreparable loss and harship will be caused. Therefore, he filed these applications to grant an ad interim injunction and to appoint a Commission to conduct the election to the circles, synods. 3. The 3rd respondent has filed a common counter affidavit stating that the reliefs sought for by the applicant seeking ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents from proceeding with the election for the circles of the three synods of the 1st respondent on 23.08.2025, 30.08.2025 and 06.09.2025 is not maintainable after commencemernt of the election process, in view of Section 18(d) of the IELC bylaws. As per the Section 18(d) of the IELC bylaws, after commencement of the election process, any issue / dispute with regard to election can be questioned by the aggrieved only after the Page No.7 of 21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis O.A. No.841 of 2025 and A. No.4157 of 2025 inC.S. No.189 of 2025declaration of results. For any reason whatsoever, the elections shall not be stalled after the commencement of the Election process. Moreover, the relief sought by the applicant / Plaintiff is not supported by any material or documentary evidence in support of the same. The applicant is in regular habit of disturbing the smooth functioning of the 1st respondent by filing cases without any basis, his only intention is to create disturbance in the election without any basis. The special convention for election is held not after 3 years but one month before the end of 3 year tenure of office bearers. The present office bearers took charge on 01.11.2022 and they hold their posts till 30.10.2025. The 2nd respondent was appointed not by the 1st respondent, but by the Church Council of the 1st respondent as per Section 17(2)(a) of the Constitution from out of a list of 3 persons prepared by the Church Council. The respondents 3 to 5 are also appointed by the Church Council of the 1st respondent as per the bylaws out of three persons recommended by the respective Synod Executive Committee and not by the 1st respondent only as Page No.8 of 21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis O.A. No.841 of 2025 and A. No.4157 of 2025 inC.S. No.189 of 2025per Section 17(2)(ii) of the Constitution. 3.1. As per the Constitution of the 1st respondent Society, the Chief Election Officer shall be a retired pastor or retired office bearer of IELC. The retirement age of the pastors in the 1st respondent organization is 65 years. The age limit under Section 22(1)(a)(b) is only applicable to those who are contesting for any office in IELC and the same is not applicable to the 2nd respondent, who is not contesting in the election, but only appointed as Chief Election Officer. The appointment of the respondents 2 to 5 was done on 09.10.2024, which is within 1 year of the completion of the term of the office bearers of Church Council on 30.10.2025. The respondents 2 to 5 are competent to conduct the election as per the IELC Constitution. According to the bylaw, the electoral college meeting was held on 01.05.202. Election notification - 1 was published by the electoral college on 05.07.2025 and the eligible list was published on 07.07.2025. Page No.9 of 21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis O.A. No.841 of 2025 and A. No.4157 of 2025 inC.S. No.189 of 20253.2. As per the Constitution, the Credential Committee was constituted and their scrutiny was as per the scrutiny procedure and meeting was conducted on 01.08.2025 to 04.08.2025 and withdrawals were allowed within 15 days. All the procedures have been followed in conducting elections. The 1st respondent has no role or involvement in the conduct of election process, nor does it exercise any control over the Electroal College in any manner. The Electoral College is an independent body constituted under the IELC Constitution and its functions are completely autonomous. Earlier the Hon'ble Administrator was appointed by this Court and the same method was followed by the respondents 2 to 5. The 1st list for all 3 synods was published on 05.08.2024 and the revised list was published for Nagercoil Synod on 07.08.2025 and on 08.08.2025, revised list was published for Trivandrum Synod and for Ambur Synod, on 09.08.2025 and on 16.08.2025, a revised and final lists were published. Page No.10 of 21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis O.A. No.841 of 2025 and A. No.4157 of 2025 inC.S. No.189 of 20253.3. Due to some spelling mistakes in the names and two persons from same congregation / pastorate cannot be nominated to contest for the same post by the congregation and one person cannot be nominated to contest election for same post in Circle and Synod, the publications of successful list was made, in the voters list. In all the 3 Synods, there was no addition or deletion, but only correction in spelling. However, the list of nominations in all the three Synods required correction due to withdrawal within time, erroneous forwarding of 2 names for the same post from the congregations and the same person being nominated for posts in both circles and synods. In accordance with bylaw, final voters list was published on 12.08.2025. After publishing of the voters list of Ambur Synod, three leaders met the 3rd respondent and informed that there are three fake nominations and fake withdrawals by someone on behalf of person nominated for election without his knowledge or approval or consent, hence after rectifying the same, the 2nd Page No.11 of 21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis O.A. No.841 of 2025 and A. No.4157 of 2025 inC.S. No.189 of 2025respondent has published the final voters list on 16.08.2025. 3.4. In the Ambur Synod, out of 92 pastorates, only 2 pastorates (Kadambur Malad) were left out due to non-payment of arrears and other 90 pastorates were eligible for participating in the elections. Likewise, in Nagercoil Synod, out of 76 pastorates, only one was left out (Kannangulam) due to non-payment of arrears and all 75 other pastorates were eligible for participating in the elections. In Trivandrum Synod out of 83 pastorates, ony one was left out (Salaikonam) due to non-payment of arrears and other 82 pastorates were eligible for elections. There is no prima facie case made out. The Notification No.2/22 was issued by the respondents 2 to 5 on 05.07.2025 and the list of nominations and delegates for circle and executive committee was published on 05.08.2025 in accordance with the Constitution. There is no illegality in the publishing of final list on 12.08.2025, as the same was done only to correct some mistakes like spelling in the names etc., based on Page No.12 of 21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis O.A. No.841 of 2025 and A. No.4157 of 2025 inC.S. No.189 of 2025the representation made. The applicant has no case for relief and the balance of convenience is also entirely in favour of the respondents and not in favour of the applicant. No irreparable loss will be caused to the applicant, if the relief is not granted to him, but at the same time, if the relief is granted, the respondents will be put to irreparable loss. Therefore, the applications are liable to be dismissed.4. Heard both sides and perused the entire materials available on record.5. In this case, the main Suit is filed for the relieves to declare that the appointment of the defendants 2 to 5 as Election Officers by the 1st defendant on 09.10.2024 is null and void and in consequence thereof grant a permanent injunction restraining the defendants their officers men or agents from officiating as Electoral College violating the provisions of the Constitution Page No.13 of 21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis O.A. No.841 of 2025 and A. No.4157 of 2025 inC.S. No.189 of 2025and bylaw of the 1st defendant; to declare that the final list of eligible delegates and nominees for the circles dated 12.08.2025, published by the 2nd defendant is null and void; to declare that the final list of eligible delegates and nominees for the circles dated 12.08.2025 followed by revised final list of eligible delegates and nominees 16.08.2025, published by the 2nd defendant is null and void; and to grant a mandatory injunction directing the 1st defendant to hold elections to its three Synods and 15 circles as per the registered Constitution and bylaw of the 1st defendant.6. The Suit has been filed on 19.08.2025, but the respondents 2 to 5 were appointed on 09.10.2024. One of the reliefs sought for by the applicant / Plaintiff is to declare the appointment of the defendants 2 to 5 as Election Officers as null and void. They have not challenged the said appointment of the respondents 2 to 5 immediately after their appointment and thereafter, they started the election process and already for the Nagercoil Synod, election Page No.14 of 21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis O.A. No.841 of 2025 and A. No.4157 of 2025 inC.S. No.189 of 2025was conducted and circle election was also completed. The final list of eligible delegates and nominees for the circles was also published on 12.08.2025 and the final list of eligible candidates and nominees for the circles was published on 16.08.2025. Therefore, it is clear that the election process was already commenced. The applicant has filed the Suit by alleging that there are so many procedural violations as per the bylaws and there are irregularities committed in preparing the voters list. In appointing the respondents 2 to 5, no procedures have been followed as per the bylaws. Those allegations have to be tested through trial. Even according to the applicant, the election for 15 circles was already completed and dates of election for 3 Synods were fixed on 23.08.2025. 30.08.2025 and 06.09.2025. 7. This Court also passed an interim order dated 22.08.2025 that the election, as notified, is permitted to be conducted, but the results of the election shall not be published, as this Court has already prima facie found Page No.15 of 21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis O.A. No.841 of 2025 and A. No.4157 of 2025 inC.S. No.189 of 2025that there has been infraction of Constitution and Bylaws in the conduct of election and the respondents shall also not claim any equirty whatsoever on the election that are permitted to be conducted. However, as per Section 18(d) of the IELC bylaws, "after commencement of the election process, any issue / dispute with regard to election can be questioned by the aggrieved only after the declaration of results. For any reason whatsoever, the elections shall not be stalled after the commencement of the Election Process". 8. In this case, it is an admitted fact that already elections have been commenced. Therefore, as per Section 18(d) of IELC, the person can question only after declaration of results and the election shall not be stalled after the commencement of the election process. Moreover, there are so many allegations levelled by the applicant as against the appointment of office bearers in the publishing list and those allegations have to be proved through evidence and therefore, at this stage, this Court without any elaborate trial, Page No.16 of 21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis O.A. No.841 of 2025 and A. No.4157 of 2025 inC.S. No.189 of 2025cannot come to a fair conclusion. 9. It is also an admitted fact that already for all the three Synods, election was conducted. This Court also passed an order dated 04.09.2025 that "....2. in the meantime, since the election of Ambur Synod has been scheduled to be held on 06.09.2025, the election process may go on, but the result of election shall not be declared until further orders". Therefore, as per bylaw Section 18(d) of IELC, "after commencement of the election process, any issue / dispute with regard to election can be questioned by the aggrieved only after the declaration of results. For any reason whatsoever, the elections shall not be stalled after the commencement of the Election Process". As far as interim injunction is concerned, it is well settled law that to grant ad interim injunction, the applicant has to make prima facie case, the balance of convenience and irreparable loss caused to him. In this application, there is no any pleading in respect of the prima facie caes and the balance of Page No.17 of 21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis O.A. No.841 of 2025 and A. No.4157 of 2025 inC.S. No.189 of 2025convenience is also in favour of the respondents and the applicant has only pleaded that irreparable loss would be caused to him. In order to make out prima facie case, there are no sufficient records produced by the applicant to substantiate the allegations levelled in the application. The balance of convenience is also not lying in favour of hte applicant and if the injunction is not granted, no prejudice would be caused to the applicant and as per Section 18(d) of IELC bylaws, they can challenge the irregularities after announcement of the results. 10. Therefore, in view of the above said discussions, this Court is of the opinion that this applicant is not entitled to any relief. As far as the appointment of Election Commission to conduct the election is concerned, in view of the discussions made supra, this applicant is not entitled to the appointment of Commission to conduct election. Therefore, both the Original Application in O.A. No.841 of 2025 and Application No.4157 of 2025 have Page No.18 of 21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis O.A. No.841 of 2025 and A. No.4157 of 2025 inC.S. No.189 of 2025no merits and deserve to be dismissed.11. Accordingly, both the applications are dismissed.26.09.2025[2/2]mjsPage No.19 of 21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis O.A. No.841 of 2025 and A. No.4157 of 2025 inC.S. No.189 of 2025P.DHANABAL.,JmjsO.A. No.841 of 2025 and A. No.4157 of 2025in C.S. No.189 of 2025Page No.20 of 21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis O.A. No.841 of 2025 and A. No.4157 of 2025 inC.S. No.189 of 202526.09.2025[2/2]Page No.21 of 21