Sei sulla pagina 1di 15

From

 

A.Earnest Balasingh, Secretary, TDTA Employees Welfare Association, Palayamkottai.

To

 

The Rigistrar of Companies, Shastri Bhavan, No. 26, Haddows Road, Chennai - 600 006.

Sir,

The “Tirunelveli Diocesan Trust Association” referred to as TDTA was incorporated under the Indian Companies Act 1913 (Reg. No.003009). As per the Articles of the Association the Bishop of the Diocese and the Treasurer of the Tirunelveli Diocesan council are the ex-officio members of the Executive Committee of the Association. The members of the Association shall be the members of the Executive Committee of the Tirunelveli Diocesan Council on their signifying their consent to become members.

The elections are held in four phases once in four years. In the elections conducted in the year 2007, the first two phases of the election were conducted in a fair and smooth manner. The Then Bishop Jeyapaul David, a self-preserving person, just to make his brother-in-law Mr. Devadoss the Lay Secretary of the Diocese, did not conduct the third and fourth phases of the election, but announced the names of his men as the elected candidates. The whole Diocese was shocked. Notwithstanding the thumping victory of the A.D.J.C. Thinahar Group in the first two phases of the election, the Bishop supported the minority group headed by one Mr. Vedanayagam and announced his brother-in-law Devadoss as the Lay Secretary of the Diocese violating the Diocesan constitution totally and throwing off the legal bindings too.Several cases connected with the Diocesan election are pending in varous courts.

Dr. D. Ranjan and 4 others filed a suit O.S. No. 62 of 2008 in the District Court, Tirunelveli. The Bishop has given the counter affidavit for it. “The petition as well as the suit are not maintainable without adding the Tirunelveli Diocesan Trust Association (TDTA) a company registered under the Companies Act as No.2/1916-1917 which owns the Churches, educational institutions, hospitals and other properties. The constitution of the Diocese of Tirunelveli is an annexure and procedure which is part of the articles of Association for electing the general body and committee of management of the company namely Tirunelveli Diocesan Trust Association and for the administration of the Churches, educational Institutions and other properties. The elections to the pastorates and other councils are nothing but the first phase of election towards the election of the general body and the committee of the Management of the company. The Diocese of Tirunelveli is a limb of the TDTA. Since the Tirunelveli Diocesan Trust Association is the only legal and jurisdic person entitled to sue and to be sued, the suit and the petition filed, without adding the Tirunelveli Diocesan Trust Association are legally not maintainable and reliable to be dismissed in limine.”

(i) The Honourable Justice Mr. Tamil Vanan in his verdict in CRP

(PD) No. 2527 to 2529 of 2008. (penultimate paragraph of his order) has pointed out “The trial court is directed to dispose the suit according to law on merits, within six months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, without considering the findings of this Court in the revisions.”

“The Diocese of Tirunelveli is admittedly running various schools, colleges and hospitals. Hence, the functioning of the aforesaid public institutions should not suffer and the same must be administered, without causing any inconvenience to the students, teachers other staff members and the public. Therefore, this Court is duty bound to pass suitable orders, in order to administer the public institutions, pending disposal of the suit.”

(ii) The Honourable justice Mr. Venugopal in CRP (PD) MO No.s

457 and 458 of 2008 and MP (MO) No. 1 of 2009 has clearly stated in his judgement “As far as the present case is concerned, since the order issuing direction in I.A. No. 739 of 2007 in O.S. No. 194 of 2007 dated 30.11.2007, passed by the learned Additional District Munsif, Nanguneri, has been set aside by this

Court in C.R.P. No. 1764 of 2007 dated 14.12.2007, the subsequent election which has been conducted is only a non-est in the eye of law and (as a matter of prudence, one cannot brush aside an importent fact that the revision petitioner claims only to have been elected in pursuance of the order in I.A. No. 739 of 2007 in O.S. No. 194 of 2007) and the parties are relegated to original position as on the date of filing of the suit in O.S. No. 194 of 2007 and inasmuch as I.A. No. 629 of 2008 in O.S. No. 351 of 2008 filed under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been allowed by the trial court whereby, the Bishop has been permitted to represent all the members of the Diocese, this Court is of the considered view that the revision petitioner is not a proper and necessary party and moreover, the revision petitioner cannot be added as a party merely because he will be affected by the judgment or orders of the Court incidentally and indeed the revision petitioner has no enforceble legal right”.

(iii) The Honourable Mr. Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Mr.

Justice D Hari Paranthaman of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has quoted the above excerpt from the orders of the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tamil Vanan and calls it only temporary. “Two things flow out of the said order viz (i) that the court did not decide the election dispute finally but made an interim arrangement permitting the Bishop and those claimed by him to have been elected, to continue the administration only till the disposal of the suit and (ii) that the court did not set aside or annul the appointments made by the respondents in the revision petition. Therefore, while the Secretaries who took charges in pursuance of the orders passed in the civil revision petitions, could use the order in the revision petitions as a shield, they cannot use it as a sword to strike at the appointments - (i)

without having the issue finally resolved in the suit and (ii) without affording an opportunity to the appellants to show cause.

87.

disclose -

The documents filed by the appellants in their writ petitions would

(a)

That they were duly qualified for appointments to those posts;

(b)

That their qualifications were approved by the concerned University

to which those two colleges were affiliated;

(c)

That the orders of appointment were also forwarded to the Director

of Collegiate Education for approval;

(d)

That their appointments were made against sanctioned posts;

(e)

That on the date on which the orders of appointment were issued to

the appellants, persons who issued those orders were recognised by the Director of Collegiate Education as Secretaries of the two colleges; and

(f) That since the two colleges are aided minority institutions, they had

the freedom of choice of the candidates.”

A hectic study of the above quoted orders bring to light the following undeniable facts:-

(i) The Tirunelveli Diocesan Trust Association is the only body that

can administer the educational institutions as per the Memorandum and articles of Association. The elected members of the Executive Committee of the Tirunelveli Diocesan Council are the members of the TDTA. “The business and affairs of the Association shall be managed by a Committee of Management .Neither the Executive Committee of the Diocese nor the any sub-committee constituted by the Diocese can have a control over the educational institutions. The Diocesan election is under dispute. No judgement gives the right to the Bishop to form Committees. So the present committees are pseudo committees or non-existing committees which cannot function.

Fake committees constituted when the election dispute is pending in the court have no power or can claim any right in the administration of the TDTA. But the Bishop and his associate Vedanayagam have formed fake committees and perform illegal administration.

(ii) Appointments of Managers

Clause 18(g) which elaborates on the powers of the Committee of Management reads as follows:

“To appoint or remove and delegate any of their powers to a Manager.”

The Managers of the Educational Institutions should be appointed only be the Committee of Management. The Bishop has no power to appoint the Managers. The existing Committee of

From

 

A.Earnest Balasingh, Secretary, TDTA Employees Welfare Association, Palayamkottai.

To

 

The Rigistrar of Companies, Shastri Bhavan, No. 26, Haddows Road, Chennai - 600 006.

Sir,

The “Tirunelveli Diocesan Trust Association” referred to as TDTA was incorporated under the Indian Companies Act 1913 (Reg. No.003009). As per the Articles of the Association the Bishop of the Diocese and the Treasurer of the Tirunelveli Diocesan council are the ex-officio members of the Executive Committee of the Association. The members of the Association shall be the members of the Executive Committee of the Tirunelveli Diocesan Council on their signifying their consent to become members.

The elections are held in four phases once in four years. In the elections conducted in the year 2007, the first two phases of the election were conducted in a fair and smooth manner. The Then Bishop Jeyapaul David, a self-preserving person, just to make his brother-in-law Mr. Devadoss the Lay Secretary of the Diocese, did not conduct the third and fourth phases of the election, but announced the names of his men as the elected candidates. The whole Diocese was shocked. Notwithstanding the thumping victory of the A.D.J.C. Thinahar Group in the first two phases of the election, the Bishop supported the minority group headed by one Mr. Vedanayagam and announced his brother-in-law Devadoss as the Lay Secretary of the Diocese violating the Diocesan constitution totally and throwing off the legal bindings

too.Several cases varous courts.

connected with the Diocesan election are pending in

Dr. D. Ranjan and 4 others filed a suit O.S. No. 62 of 2008 in the District Court, Tirunelveli. The Bishop has given the counter affidavit for it. “The petition as well as the suit are not maintainable without adding the Tirunelveli Diocesan Trust Association (TDTA) a company registered under the Companies Act as No.2/1916-1917 which owns the Churches, educational institutions, hospitals and other properties. The constitution of the Diocese of Tirunelveli is an annexure and procedure which is part of the articles of Association for electing the general body and committee of management of the company namely Tirunelveli Diocesan Trust Association and for the administration of the Churches, educational Institutions and other properties. The elections to the pastorates and other councils are nothing but the first phase of election towards the election of the general body and the committee of the Management of the company. The Diocese of Tirunelveli is a limb of the TDTA. Since the Tirunelveli Diocesan Trust Association is the only legal and jurisdic person entitled to sue and to be sued, the suit and the petition filed, without adding the Tirunelveli Diocesan Trust Association are legally not maintainable and reliable to be dismissed in limine.”

(i) The Honourable Justice Mr. Tamil Vanan in his verdict in CRP

(PD) No. 2527 to 2529 of 2008. (penultimate paragraph of his order) has pointed out “The trial court is directed to dispose the suit according to law on merits, within six months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, without considering the findings of this Court in the revisions.”

“The Diocese of Tirunelveli is admittedly running various schools, colleges and hospitals. Hence, the functioning of the aforesaid public institutions should not suffer and the same must be administered, without causing any inconvenience to the students, teachers other staff members and the public. Therefore, this Court is duty bound to pass suitable orders, in order to administer the public institutions, pending disposal of the suit.”

(ii) The Honourable justice Mr. Venugopal in CRP (PD) MO No.s

457 and 458 of 2008 and MP (MO) No. 1 of 2009 has clearly stated in his

judgement “As far as the present case is concerned, since the order issuing direction in I.A. No. 739 of 2007 in O.S. No. 194 of 2007 dated 30.11.2007, passed by the learned Additional District Munsif, Nanguneri, has been set aside by this Court in C.R.P. No. 1764 of 2007 dated 14.12.2007, the subsequent election which has been conducted is only a non-est in the eye of law and (as a matter of prudence, one cannot brush aside an importent fact that the revision petitioner claims only to have been elected in pursuance of the order in I.A. No. 739 of 2007 in O.S. No. 194 of 2007) and the parties are relegated to original position as on the date of filing of the suit in O.S. No. 194 of 2007 and inasmuch as I.A. No. 629 of 2008 in O.S. No. 351 of 2008 filed under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been allowed by the trial court whereby, the Bishop has been permitted to represent all the members of the Diocese, this Court is of the considered view that the revision petitioner is not a proper and necessary party and moreover, the revision petitioner cannot be added as a party merely because he will be affected by the judgment or orders of the Court incidentally and indeed the revision petitioner has no enforceble legal right”.

(iii) The Honourable Mr. Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Mr.

Justice D Hari Paranthaman of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has quoted the above excerpt from the orders of the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tamil Vanan and calls it only temporary. “Two things flow out of the said order viz (i) that the court did not decide the election dispute finally but made an interim arrangement permitting the Bishop and those claimed by him to have been elected, to continue the administration only till the disposal of the suit and (ii) that the court did not set aside or annul the appointments made by the respondents in the revision petition. Therefore, while the Secretaries who took charges in pursuance of the orders passed in the civil revision petitions, could use the order in the revision petitions as a shield, they cannot use it as a swordto strike at the appointments - (i) without having the issue finally resolved in the suit and (ii) without affording an opportunity to the appellants to show cause.

87.

disclose -

The documents filed by the appellants in their writ petitions would

(a) That they were duly qualified for appointments to those posts;

(b) That their qualifications were approved by the concerned University

to which those two colleges were affiliated;

(c) That the orders of appointment were also forwarded to the Director

of Collegiate Education for approval;

(d)

That their appointments were made against sanctioned posts;

(e)

That on the date on which the orders of appointment were issued to

the appellants, persons who issued those orders were recognised by the Director of Collegiate Education as Secretaries of the two colleges; and

(f) That since the two colleges are aided minority institutions, they had

the freedom of choice of the candidates.”

A hectic study of the above quoted orders bring to light the following undeniable facts:-

(i) The Tirunelveli Diocesan Trust Association is the only body that

can administer the educational institutions as per the Memorandum and articles of Association. The elected members of the Executive Committee of the Tirunelveli Diocesan Council are the members of the TDTA. “The business and affairs of the Association shall be managed by a Committee of Management .Neither the Executive Committee of the Diocese nor the any sub-committee constituted by the Diocese can have a control over the educational institutions. The Diocesan election is under dispute. No judgement gives the right to the Bishop to form Committees. So the present committees are pseudo committees or non-existing committees which cannot function.

Fake committees constituted when the election dispute is pending in the court have no power or can claim any right in the administration of the TDTA. But the Bishop and his associate Vedanayagam have formed fake committees and perform illegal administration.

(ii) Appointments of Managers

Clause 18(g) which elaborates on the powers of the Committee of Management reads as follows:

“To appoint or remove and delegate any of their powers to a Manager.”

The Managers of the Educational Institutions should be appointed only be the Committee of Management. The Bishop has no power to appoint the Managers. The existing Committee ofManagement which has the genuine power has appointed Rev. Jacob Chelliah and Mr. A. Daniel Sigamoni Simeon as Managers of Primary and Middle Schools and High./Hr. Sec./ Spl. Schools and TTI’s respectively.

Mr. Devakazhanjiam and Rev. Peter Devadoss who now occupy the seats as so called Managers are not appointed by the Committee of Management in power. So all the appointments, transfers and promotions executed by the so-called managers Mr. Devakazhanjiam and Rev. Peter Devadoss become invalid. We request the Officers in the Educational Department to take not of it. If they are to approve the appointments, transfers, and promotions executed byMr. Devakazhinjam and Rev. Peter Devadoss or their agents, the Correspondent, they will be held responsible.

(iii) Criminal Offence in Changing the Names of the members of the

Committee of Management of TDTA

The genuine committee of Management registered legally with the Registrar, Ministry of Corporate affairs comprises of the following members:

1.

Rt. Rev. S. Jeyapaul David, Bishop-in-Tirunelveli, Ex. Officio

Member.

2.

Rev. N. Christy Chakaravarthy, Vice Chairman,

3.

Sri. K.P.K. Selvaraj,

4.

Rev. M.G.R. Sugumar, Clerical Secretary,

5.

Sri. A.D.J.C. Thinahar, Lay-Secretary,

6.

Sri. L.P.R. David Selvaraj,

7.

Sri. A. Devadoss,

The third and fourth phases of the Diocesan election are under dispute and cases are pending in the court of law. So it is not at all possible to form a new executive committee which can elect new members. Pseudo executive committee has no power or right to elect new members. But the Bishop and his associates have gone to the extent of producing by fabrication the minutes of an executive committee to make changes in the list of members of the management committee. The committee was not at all convened. The pity is the members of the so called executive committee are not new members but members in ADJC Thinakar regime. So changing the names of the members of the Management Committee ofthe TDTA is a criminal offence - cheating (copy attached).

(iv) Misappropriation in Finance

The using software is free version, you can upgrade it to the upgrade version.http://www.allimagetool.com

Clause (4) of the Articles of Assoication of the Tinnevelly Diocesan Trust Association states “the Treasurer of the Association shall be the person who is for the time being the Treasurer of Tinnevelly Diocesan Council”.

The third and fourth phase of the Diocesan election is under dispute and cases are pending in the court. So just forming the Diocesan Council with members who were not elected is highly illegal and against natural justice. No verdict of the court has conferred on the Bishop the power to form a Diocesan Council. Only in the first meeting of the Diocesan Council the Treasurer of the Diocesan Council can be appointed and he will also be called the Treasurer of the TDTA. Following the norms laid by the Memorandum of articles Mr. Jeyam Ponniah was the appointed Treasurer of the Diocesan Council. The Bishop in an autocratic manner removed Mr. Jeyam Ponniah and illegally

appointed Mr. Selwyn Jeyaraj as the Treasurer, whereas only the Committee of Management has the power to remove any officer from his seat.

This has been done violating all the norms by the then Bishop in collusion with Vedanayagam because they wanted a rubber-stamp like Mr. Selwyn Jeyaraj with whose signature any amount can be drawn from the T.D.T.A. General funds or the funds with the educational institutions.

The offertory collected from poor downtrodden people in the Churches and the unauthorised capitation fee collected from parents of students by compulsion and squeezing, is spent and misused for the following purposes.

(i) To adorn luxuriously the Bishop, Bishopstowe and Bishop’s

associates.

(ii) Tio fill the bellies of the Correspondents of institutions who act

as agents of the Bishop, the Manager and Vedanayagam.

(iii)

For the legal expenses

(iv)

Even without the knowledge of the Heads of Institutions lakhs

and lakhs of rupees are drawn from Educational Institutions through the Correspondents by Mr. Vedanayagam to make his purse pregnant.

Clause (32) of the Memorandum of articles says “No payment shall be made without the order of the committee, except payments on petty cash account, for which the committee may place at the disposal of the Secretary and Treasurer such sum as they think fit, no exceeding at any one time Rs.500/- and the Secretary and Treasurer shall make at such times as the committee direct a return of all receipts, payments and liabilities on petty cash account”.

But the so-called Treasurer Mr. Selwyn Jeyaraj without getting the permission of the Committee of Management freely throws away lakhs and lakhs of rupees on requests made by the Bishop, Vedanayagam and the so- called legal advisor of the Diocesan Mr. Ravindran Charles (No such post is permitted in the Diocese).

Hence we request all the Managers of Banks not to issue any amount on demand by the so-called Treasurer Mr. Selwyn Jeyaraj or the Bishop through cheques. If you honour the cheques, you are answerable in the court of law.

As the election dispute was in the court of law and several cases connected with the dispute were pending.

(i) The Vallioor Sub-court gave an injunction stating that the 3rd

and 4th phases of the elections were not held. Status -quo was given to ADJC Thinakar to continue in administration in comphance with its I.A. No. 6990/2008 in I.A. No. 2898 of 2008.

The Secretaries appointed by the genuine committee of Management appointed 30 appointments in both St. John’s College Palayamkottai and Sarah Tucker College, Palayamkottai and the Manager, TDTA High/ Hr. Sec./Spl. Schools and TTIs appointed teachers in schools. The Madras High Court of Madurai Bench has issued an order in CRP No. 457 & 458 / 2009 dt. 15.04.2008 stating the election process in non-est before the eye of law. In the CRP (PD) Nos. 2527 to 2529 of 2008 the Hon’ble Justice permitted the Diocese of Tirunelveli represented by its Bishop to continue the administration with the office bearers holding their respective posts as per Exhibit R-1 till the disposal of the suit.

But the present administration has terminated the service of the legally appointed teachers illegally and abruptly. Writ appeals by the terminated lecturers and teachers in the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court. The Hon’ble judges have allowed the writ petitions of the nocked-out teachers.

The Hon’ble justice points out that the termination orders are “violation of the ”

the court did not set aside to annul the

appointments made by the respondents in the revision petitioner . Then the Hon’ble judges have confirmed the appointments of the teachers already appointed in schools and colleges and declare that the appointments made previously are legal and genuine. In spite of the clear judgement which is in favour of the teachers originally appointed, the present fake administration

principles of natural justice

ignores the judgement and refuses to allow the teachers to enter the instutitions and sign the Masters.

Conclusion

The Vallioor Sub-court has given an injunction stating that the 3rd and 4th phase of th elections were not held. Status-quo was givne to ADJC Thinahar and his team to continue the administration as in order O.S. No. 341/2007 in I.A. No. 1649/2007.

Honourable Justice Tamilvanan has stated in his order CRP (PD) 2527 to 2529 of 2008 that the stop-gap arrangement in administration is only an interim arrangement and the case should be completed in the city civil court within another six months. The administration should be as per Exhibit R-1, till the disposal of the suit.

Hon’ble Justice Venugopal in his order in CRP (PD) M.O. Nos. 457 and 458 of 2009 and M.P. (MO) No.1 of 2009 has mentioned that as the additional District Munsif, Nanguneri has set aside, the

subsequent election which has been conducted is only a non-est in the eye of law and the parties are relegated to original posiition as on

2.11.2007.

The Hon’ble Judges of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in W.A. (MD) No.245 of 2009 have clearly stated “The court did not decide the election dispute finally, but made an interim arrangement to continue the administration only till the disposal of the suit”.

All the above orders openly declare that the Diocesan election is under dispute and several cases are pending before the courts. So formation of sub-committees, appointments of the Managers and functioning of the committees are all cheatings. No judicial order permits any of these. All the appointments, transfers, promotions and penalities executed by the pseudo administration are fake and invalid.

The election of the Bishop, members to the Synod and all other

elections conducted by the present fake regime will become null and

void.

We make an appeal to the Educational Department not to

approve any functioning and operation of the fake committee and

officials illegally appointed. If you ignore this appeal you are

answerable.

We also request the Bank Managers concerned not to recognise

the Bishop or the illegally appointed Treasurer Mr. Selwyn Jeyaraj and

not to honour any cheque issued by them.

Place : Palayamkottai

Thanking you,

Yours sincerely,

Date

: 09.04.2010

Encl

: Madurai Bench Madras High Court Division Bench Order dated

26.03.2010

Copy to

1. The Chief Minister’s Special Cell St.George Fort, Chennai – 9.

2. The Secretary, Home Dept, St.George Fort, Chennai – 9.

3. The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli.

4. The Secretary, College of Education, St.George Fort, Chennai – 9.

5. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Maharaja Nager, Tirunelveli

– 11.

6. The Secretary, Education Dept, St.George Fort, Chennai – 9.

7. The Director General of Police, Beach road, Triplicane, Chennai – 6.

8. The Director, Directorate of College Education, College Road, Chennai – 6.

9. The Principal, DIET, Munanjipatti, Tirunelveli Dist.

10. The Director, Directorate of School Education, College Road, Chennai – 6.

11.

The Director, DTERT, College Road, Chennai – 6.

12. The Joint Director, Directorate of School Education, Chennai – 6.

13. The District Elementary Educational Officer, S.N. High Road, Tirunelveli – 1.

14. The Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli.

15. The Asst. Commissioner of Police, Crime Branch, Palayamkottai.

16. The Chief Educational Officer, Tirunelveli - 9.

17. The District Educational Officer, Tirunelveli - 1.

18. The District Educational Officer, Cheranmahadevi at Tirunelveli - 1.

19. The District Collector, Tirunelveli - 9.

20. The District Elementary Educational Officer, Tirunelveli - 1.

21. The Director, Vigilance And Anti-corruption. Chennai

22. The Joint Director, Vigilance And Anti-corruption. Chennai.

23. The Secretary to the Chief Minister, Chennai.

24. The Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Chennai.