How powerful is the Nagpur Archbishop?

The extraordinary situation has arisen as the outgoing archbishop, Rev Leobard D’Souza, finds himself embroiled in a raging controversy regarding Church property in the city. He is facing action under Section 41 D of the Bombay Public Trust Act. Legal inquiry No 2/’98 is pending against him in Nagpur’s Charity Commissioner court. The probe still continues into the alleged mismanagement of certain pieces of trust property of the RomanCatholic Church in the city. Even the provisions of the Canon Law have allegedly been flouted in these deals. Earlier three Catholic priests – Rev Jimmy D’ Mellow, the Judicial Vicar in charge of the Tribunal Court of the Roman Catholic Church, Rev Tony D’Mellow, Parish priest, Chhindwara and Bryce Coutinho of the Untkhana Church had challenged Rev Leobard D’Souza for flouting Section 36 of the Bombay Public Trust (BPT) Act.

The three priests, who are the beneficiaries of the trust, had lodged a complaint against Archbishop Leobard D’Souza and another Trustee, Auxiliary Bishop Sylvestor Monteiro, with the Charity Commissioner’s Office here.

Taking a serious note of the episode, the Charity Commissions had admitted the plea and case hearing began last month.

In their zeal to promote the good works for society, it is alleged the two trustees in question overstepped their limits by not observing the BPT Act rules. They allegedly violated the rules under Section 36 of the BPT, according to which noimmovable property, be it a structure or land can be sold or given away without the Charity Commissioner’s permission in the city.

Archbishop D’Souza, Chief Authority of the Roman Catholic Church, and Sylvestor Monteiro had started the Jeevodaya school for mentally handicapped children on the trust land, allegedly without obtaining necessary clearance and permission from the Charity Commissioner. They also established the Ish Kripa Sadan (House for priests) at Seminary Hills in the same manner.

The three priests had not objected to the establishment of the two institutions, but to the covert manner in which the work was done in flagrant violation of the norms and regulations of the trust. Since the land and the money used for the running of the two institutes belonged to the Church trust, the trustees could not have bypassed the stipulated rules of the Public Trust Act. The priests feared that such wrong proceedings could set a bad precedent and disrupt the smooth functioning of the trust and the churchin future.

The Nagpur Roman Catholic Diocesan Corporation constitution provides that the Archbishop of Nagpur function as the Chief Trustee. But the new incumbent does not have the powers of the Chief Trustee till he gets his clearance from the Charity Commissioner of Nagpur. Because of the court case, it looks unlikely that the matter would be settled soon.

The matter as regards Inquiry 2 of ’98 has to be first settled. The next hearing is due next month. It could therefore mean a long wait for the new incumbent.

However, there is a provision for the outgoing Archbishop to wriggle out of the piquant situation, threatening to tear apart the fragile fabric of the Church trust. If the non-applicants in Inquiry 2 of ’98 are ready for an out of the court settlement, matters can still be resolved without ruffling more feathers.

In the existing situation, the Chief Trustee and the outgoing Arbishop, Rev. Leobard D’Souza would have a lot to explain. How the bungling took place and how he proposes to offsetthe damage done. But then, the incoming Chief Trustee, and the new Archbishop, Rev Abraham Viruthakulangara would have to get convinced about the veracity of these arguments. If that happens the controversy would naturally die down.