Facts about Kolanchery Church episode

  Given below a detailed Communique from Fr Dr Johns Abraham Konat which is self explanatary

Subject:- The Kolenchery Church ue

Fr. Dr. Johns Abraham Konat, Priest Trustee.

            Let us thank God the Almighty for the peaceful ending of the fasting undertaken by H. H. Bava Thirumeny and H.G. Dr. Mathews Mar Severios Metropolitan. Both of them decided to end the fasting by 11.30 p. m. on Sunday 18^th September by receiving karikinvellam from H.G. Thomas Mar Athanasius Metropolitan (Chengannur) and H. G. Dr. Thomas Mar Athanasios Metropolitan (Kandanad East), the president of the core committee which was entrusted to lead the Upavasa Prarthana Yagnam. Honb’le Chief Minister Sri. Oommen Chandy gave leadership to the discussions which finally culminated in the ending of the fasting. The decision came after Bava Thirumany received a written assurance from the side of the Government that the Court order will be implemented after 15 days. A last attempt will be made during these 15 days to solve the issue amicably. If no result comes out from these discussions, the Government will implement the court verdict. This decision of the government was written and signed by the Ernakulam District Collector for the Government of Kerala. We received the document by 11 p.m. which was scrutinized by our advocate Sreekumar and the bishops of the church present at Kolenchery. After getting the consent of all, H. H. Bava Thirumeny declared that H. H. is ending the fasting. It was a moment of great joy for the whole Church. So many disputes with the Patriarch’s group have been settled in the past through the mediation of ministers or other representatives of the Government; but no Government had ever before written a document of settlement assuring to implement court orders. So by getting such a written assurance from the Government, the Orthodox Church has got what it was asking for during the last few decades. This is our victory.

            May be there are some confusions among our people about the genuineness of this assurance. Let me make it clear that it is not just a verbal assurance but a written assurance. Our advocate Sreekumar said that this is the best way to end this Upavasa Prarthana Yagnam.

            The Patriarch’s faction committed some blunders in this issue.

1.      Their first mistake was that they themselves filed an Original Suit (OS 43/07) in 2007 for getting full possession of the church and its properties. The verdict which was given on 16^th August 2011 went against them.

2.      They could not get a stay order from the court immediately and thus H. G. Dr. Mathews Mar Severios, Metropolitan of Kandanad West could celebrate Holy Qurbana in the Church the very next day. This proved that H. G. has full authority over the church and the Patriarch’s faction could not oppose it. They proclaimed that their bishops will also celebrate during the subsequent Sundays, but nothing happened. They should have at least refrained from making such declarations.

3.      Within 2 days the same court which gave the verdict allowed a stay for 15 days and thus the status quo was restored. The day on which the stay expired the Superintend of Police (Aluva rural) asked them to vacate the church and remove all their belongings from the premises because they have no more any right there. They acted accordingly and left taking everything which belonged to them. They did not come back for three days. After 3 days a single bench of the High Court (HC) extended the stay for one more week and they came back to the church and celebrated Qurbana for a day according to the status quo.

4.      In the meanwhile they tried to file an appeal with the HC which was initially avoided by a few benches, but finally they could file an appeal. The biggest blunder they committed was that they approached the HC for staying the lower court’s verdict and for maintaining the status quo. Both prayers were mercilessly rejected by a High Court Division bench headed by the Chief Justice of Kerala. “We do not see any justification for granting the stay order in favour of the party, whose suit was dismissed, ……. The prayer is, therefore rejected”

5.      Now they say that the court verdict is not yet ripe for execution because the court has not yet given a decree. If so why did they abandon their claims when the stay period came to an end and came back when the stay was extended? There is no consistency in whatever they say.

6.      Now how can their demand for maintaining the status quo be granted? They had approached the court with this prayer and the court said NO. Now they say that accepting an appeal is equivalent to getting a stay order. If so why did they approach the HC for a stay order and demanding the maintenance of status quo? Moreover their argument that accepting an appeal is equivalent to stay is not true because according to Civil Procedure Code order 41 rule 5, an appeal does not have the effect of a stay order.

All the arguments of the Patriarch’s faction are baseless. They are making arguments just to save their faces before their people who were lead into a useless agitation. Let the Almighty forgive them.

I express my sincere gratitude to each and everybody who toiled and moiled for the victory of Upavasa Prarthana Yagnam.