A special sitting was held in the Madras High Court Bench here on Friday, despite it being a holiday for the court since the Telugu New Year’s Day on Wednesday, to hear a civil case related to the fourth phase of elections to the Diocese of Tirunelveli (Church of South India).
Justice J. Nisha Banu heard the civil revision petition filed by Rt.Rev. J.J. Christdoss, Bishop of the Diocese, for urgent hearing and passed an interim order restraining a lower court appointed Advocate Commissioner from proceeding with his decision to conduct the fourth phase elections.
The judge agreed with the petitioner’s counsel A. Arumugam and S. Xavier Rajini that the Advocate Commissioner, despite being an officer of the court, had issued a newspaper publication in a “hasty manner” calling for nominations for the fourth phase of elections without seeking clarification from the lower court concerned.
She pointed out that an Additional Sub Court in Tirunelveli had appointed the Advocate Commissioner on February 16 to conduct the elections. Then, the lower court had made a specific observation that the conditions for the conduct of fourth phase of elections would be issued after the completion of the third phase.
Subsequently, the Commissioner filed a report on the third phase of the elections along with a Compact Disc. The Sub Court took the report on file on March 28 and adjourned further hearing to April 3 without specifying conditions with respect to the conduct of the fourth phase elections.
Nevertheless, the Commissioner went ahead and issued a newspaper publication on March 29 calling for nominations for the fourth phase and hence the Bishop had moved the High Court with the present revision petition.
Stating that the order passed by the Sub Judge on March 28 was ‘cryptic’ and the Advocate Commissioner ought not to have proceeded with the elections without seeking a clarification from the lower court, Ms. Justice Nisha Banu granted an interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the order passed by the Sub Judge on March 28.
She also directed the High Court Registry to call for a report from the judicial officer seeking an explanation with respect to the basis on which he passed the ‘cryptic’ order.
