Ruth Yvonne Ursula Gomez Vs Union of India and 10 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/6

¶2

GAHC010191202024

¶3

undefined

¶4

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/4809/2024

¶6

RUTH YVONNE URSULA GOMEZ SECRETARY , PASTORATE COMMITTEE OF THE CHRIST CHURCH, GUWAHATI, PANBAZAR, GUWAHATI-01, W/O- LATE WINSTON GOMEZ, R/O- H.NO-10, SRI KRISHNA PATH, JANAKPUR SOUTH , KAHILIPARA, GUWAHATI-781019

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

UNION OF INDIA AND 10 ORS REP. BY THE SECRETARY , MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, 101-A, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-11

¶9

2:INDIAN CHURCH TRUSTEES BISHOPS HOUSE

¶10

51 CHOWRINGEE ROAD KOLKATA WEST BENGAL-700071 3:THE BISHOP OF CALCUTTA INDIAN CHURCH TRUSTEES BISHOPS HOUSE

¶11

51 CHOWRINGEE ROAD KOLKATA WEST BENGAL-700071

¶12

4:CHURCH OF NORTH INDIA

¶13

Page No.# 2/6

¶14

CNI BHAWAN 16 PANTH MARG NEW DELHI-01

¶15

5:MODERATOR CHURCH OF NORTH INDIA CNI BHAWAN 16 PANTH MARG NEW DELHI-01

¶16

6:DIOCESE OF NORTH EAST INDIA M.G ROAD SHILLONG PIN-7893001

¶17

7:MICHAEL HERENZ

¶18

BISHOP OF THE DIOCESE OF NORTH EAST INDIA

¶19

M.G ROAD SHILLONG PIN-7893001

¶20

8:NORTH EAST INDIA DIOCESAN TRUST ASSOCIATION REP. BY THE SECRETARY BISHOPS HOUSE

¶21

M.G ROAD SHILLONG PIN-7893001

¶22

9:HARRISON MASIH PRESBYTER IN CHARGE CHRIST CHURCH CHURCH FIELD PAN BAZAR GUWAHATI-01

¶23

10:JONATHAN GIRI THE DIOCESAN SECRETARY DIOCESE OF NORTH EAST INDIA BISHOPS KUTI SHILLONG PIN-793001

¶24

11:THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Page No.# 3/6

PANBAZAR

GUWAHATI-0

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR B D DAS, MR J LOTHA,MR. P BHOWMICK,MR H K SARMA

¶29

Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MR N A MAZARBHUIYA(R4, R-5),MR N Z CHOUDHURY(R4, R-5),MR. A R BHUYAN (R4, R-5),MR. R BORUAH (R-6 TO 10),GA, ASSAM

¶30

BEFORE

¶31

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

¶32

ORDER

¶33

03-06-2025

¶34

1. Heard Mr. B.D.Das, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. P.Bhowmick learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.K.D. Chodhury, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for the respondent No. 1. Also heard Mr. T.J.Mahanta, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. R. Boruah, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 6 to 10, Mr. N.Z.Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 & 5 and Mr. N. Das, learned State counsel for the respondent No.11.

¶35

2. The petitioner claiming to be the Secretary of Pastorate Committee of the Christ Church, Guwahati has preferred this writ petition with a prayer to direct the Union of India to issue appropriate Notification under Rule 30 of the Indian Church Statutory Rules, 1929 to hand over the control and administration of the Christ Church Guwahati to the Congregation and to allow the petitioner to conduct the services of the Christ Church, Guwahati by the members of the Pastorate Committee in an independent manner without interference of the respondent Nos. 7 & 9, i.e., the Bishop of the Diocese of North East India and the Presbyter in-charge of the Christ Church, Church Field, Guwahati.

¶36

3. In nutshell, there were allegations against the aforesaid two respondents, i.e., the respondent Nos. 7 & 9, inasmuch as, it is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner

¶37

Page No.# 4/6

¶38

was duly appointed as the Secretary to the Pastorate Committee, Christ Church, Guwahati in the meeting held on 10.02.2024 and after appointment of the respondent No. 9 as the Presbyter in-Charge, of the Christ Church, Church Field, Guwahati, there were unpleasant events in the conduct of the Church proceeding inasmuch as the respondent No. 9 lacks the essential qualities of being a Presbyter. Though the Committee took all necessary steps for appointment of an alternative Presbyter, which was failed, rather the petitioner’s Congregation could not attend the services of the Church since October, 2022.

¶39

4. From the prayer made and the pleadings, it is seen that the allegations are primarily against the respondent Nos. 7 & 9 and in the aforesaid backdrop, the petitioner wants that the Union of India, should intervene in this regard.

¶40

5. In the backdrop of the allegations that the petitioner and the other members of the Committee are not being allowed to offer the prayer at the Church, this Court under its order dated 18.12.2024, provided that the petitioner will not be prevented from offering her prayer in the Church and that the burial right in the cemetery maintained by the Church at Guwahati, should not be denied.

¶41

6. It is also on record that the petitioner had preferred a representation before the respondent No. 3, i.e., Bishop of Calcutta, Indian Church Trustees, for redressal of her grievances.

¶42

7. Mr. T.J.Mahanta, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 6 to 10 has raised a question of maintainability of this writ petition, on the ground that under the Constitution of the Church of North India and Bye-Laws, more particularly, under Section V, ‘the Court of the SYNOD,’ shall be an appellate authority for redressal of the grievance of the petitioner as grievance is raised not only against the Pastorate Committee but also against the Diocese.

¶43

8. Mr. Das, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, also submits that infact the petitioner had preferred the representation before the respondent No. 3, who is the Court of SYNOD, however, such representation is still pending and the same has not been brought to a logical conclusion. Though Mr. Das, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner,

¶44

Page No.# 5/6

¶45

submits that the law holding the field in this regard is Indian Church Act, 1927 and the Indian Church Statutory Rules, 1929, however, the petitioner shall have no objection, if, the instant writ petition is disposed of relegating the petitioner to the Court of the SYNOD for redressal of her grievances. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the interim order passed earlier shall continue.

¶46

9. Mr. Mahanta, learned Senior counsel representing the respondent Nos. 6 to 10 submits that the said respondents shall have also no objection, if the petitioner is relegated to the Court of the SYNOD even by filing a fresh appeal/representation.

¶47

10. In the context of grant of interim prayer, Mr. Mahanta, learned Senior counsel submits that the respondents have duly complied with the direction issued by this Court under its order dated 18.12.2024 and have permitted the petitioner to offer prayer in the Church. Though the petitioner has alleged that she has only been allowed to offer her prayer at 08:40 am, it is the contention of Mr. Mahanta, that timing of the prayer at 08:40 am is made for all the members of the Church and not only for the petitioner and therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner has been discriminated and the order dated 18.12.2024 has been violated.

¶48

11. Be that as it may, taking note of the factual background, the dispute involved and the submissions made, this Court is of the opinion that the present writ petition should be disposed of relegating the parties to the appellate authority for redressal of their grievances, inasmuch as, both the parties admitted that the respondent No. 3, i.e., the Bishop of Calcutta, Indian Church Trustees is the appellate authority and the representation shall be filed before the said authority.

¶49

12. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of relegating the parties to the aforesaid respondent No. 3 for redressal of their grievances. However, it is made clear that though this Court is not inclined to issue any writ of mandamus directing the respondent No. 3 to complete the entire exercise within a time period, however, this Court expects that the respondent No. 3, shall dispose of the representation/appeal within a reasonable period of time.

¶50

Page No.# 6/6

¶51

13. As regards the interim prayer, considering the matter in its entirety and the submissions made herein, this Court is of view that till a decision is taken by the respondent No. 3, the petitioner shall be allowed to offer her prayer at the Church as provided to other members of the Church without any discrimination and the same shall be applicable to the burial right too.

¶52

14. The instant writ petition stands disposed of as indicated hereinabove.

¶53

JUDGE

¶54

Comparing Assistant

Ruth Yvonne Ursula Gomez v. Union of India and 10 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ruth Yvonne Ursula Gomez v. Union of India and 10 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hari Shankar Biswas and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Jibon Kardong Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Sami Akhtara Begum Vs the State of Assam and 8 Ors.

Md. Rahman Ali Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Ruth Yvonne Ursula Gomez Vs Union of India and 10 Others

Haresh Chandra Handique and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.