Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Narni N Arayana Rao, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 22 April, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
***
W.P.No.9906 of 2021
Between:
# 1. Narni narayana Rao, S/o. Narasanna, R/o. D.No.6-6-13/5,
Bendamurulanka Village, Allavaram Mandal, East Godavari District.
2. Kotikalapudi Pandu Ranga Rao, S/o. Krishna Murthy, R/o. D.No.1-2/2,
Main Road, Bendamurulanka Village, Allavaram Mandal, East
Godavari District.
... Petitioners
AND
$ 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department, Secretariat
Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District.
2. The District Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada.
3. District Panchayat Officer, East Godavari District, Kakinada.
4. The Tahsildar, Allavaram Mandal, East Godavari District.
5. The Bendamurulanka Gram Panchayat, rep. by its Secretary,
Benamurulanka Village, Allavaram Mandal, East Goadavari District.
6. The Superintendent of Police, East Godavari District.
7. The Station House Officer, Allavaram Police Station, Allavaram
Mondal, East Godavari District.
8. Nagabathula Anand Kumar @ Anand Paul, R/o. Main Road, near
Kanaka Durga Temple, Bendamurulanka Village, Allavaram Mandal,
East Godavari District.
Respondents
Date of Judgment pronounced on : 22.04.2022
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes/No
May be allowed to see the judgments?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked : Yes/No
to Law Reporters/Journals:
3. Whether The Lordship wishes to see the fair copy : Yes/No
Of the Judgment?
2 RRR,J
W.P.No.9906 of 2021
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
*HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
+ W.P.No.9906 of 2021
% Dated:22.04.2022
Between:
# 1. Narni narayana Rao, S/o. Narasanna, R/o. D.No.6-6-13/5,
Bendamurulanka Village, Allavaram Mandal, East Godavari District.
2. Kotikalapudi Pandu Ranga Rao, S/o. Krishna Murthy, R/o. D.No.1-2/2,
Main Road, Bendamurulanka Village, Allavaram Mandal, East
Godavari District.
... Petitioners
AND
$ 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department, Secretariat
Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District.
2. The District Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada.
3. District Panchayat Officer, East Godavari District, Kakinada.
4. The Tahsildar, Allavaram Mandal, East Godavari District.
5. The Bendamurulanka Gram Panchayat, rep. by its Secretary,
Benamurulanka Village, Allavaram Mandal, East Goadavari District.
6. The Superintendent of Police, East Godavari District.
7. The Station House Officer, Allavaram Police Station, Allavaram
Mondal, East Godavari District.
8. Nagabathula Anand Kumar @ Anand Paul, R/o. Main Road, near
Kanaka Durga Temple, Bendamurulanka Village, Allavaram Mandal,
East Godavari District.
Respondents
! Counsel for Petitioners : Sri K.S. Murthy
^Counsel for Respondent No.2 : G.P. for Panchayat Raj
^Counsel for Respondent No.5 : Sri Koti Reddy Idamakanti
<GIST :
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred:
3 RRR,J
W.P.No.9906 of 2021
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
W.P.No.9906 of 2021
ORDER:
The petitioners are residents of Bendamurulanka Village, Allavaram
Mandal, East Godavari District.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that the 8th respondent, who
had purchased house bearing D.No.6-13/1 in Sy.No.181/1 of the Gram
Panchayat, had converted the said house into a Church in the name of
„Shalom Prayer House‟, without obtaining any permission from the
competent authorities and has been conducting prayer services in the said
Church by using loudspeakers. The petitioners contend that the said
activities of the 8th respondent are illegal on various grounds. Firstly, the
8th respondent is required to obtain necessary permission under Rule 26
of the A.P. Gram Panchayat Land Development (Layout and Building)
Rules 2002, (for short „the layout and building Rules‟), which requires prior
approval of the Collector of the District for construction of any building
intended for public worship or religious purposes. Secondly, usage of the
loudspeakers through out the day violates Rule-5 of the Noise Pollution
(Control and Regulation) Rules, 2000 (for short „the Noise Pollution Rules‟)
as well as the guidelines issued by the Government of A.P. vide
G.O.Ms.No.172, dated 12.10.2010.
3. The petitioners are said to have approached various
authorities complaining about the activities of the 8th respondent.
However, no action has been taken against 8th respondent due to which
the petitioners have approached this Court by way of the present writ
petition.
4 RRR,J
W.P.No.9906 of 2021
4. The petitioners also submit that the 5th respondent-Gram
Panchayat, in reply to an application made under Right To Information
Act, had certified that the 8th respondent had not obtained any permission
for construction of a Church. The petitioners seek a writ of Mandamus
declaring the inaction of the respondent authorities in taking steps against
the 8th respondent for violation of Rule 26 of the Layout and Building
Rules as well as Noise Pollution Rules and G.Os. issued from time to time.
5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 5th
respondent-Gram Panchayat. In this counter affidavit, it is stated that the
Gram Panchayat had received a complaint, dated 25.03.2021, relating to
the conversion of the residential house into a Church and the causing of
sound pollution. Thereafter, the Panchayat Secretary is said to have
conducted an enquiry during which it came to the light that the 8th
respondent did not possess any permission to run the Church, and a
notice dated 26.03.2021 was issued to the 8th respondent to give his
explanation before any further action was taken. However, the 8th
respondent, who appears to have stopped conducting prayers in the
building, did not submit any explanation nor removed the board put up in
front of his house stating that his house is a prayer house.
6. The 8th Respondent had filed a counter affidavit stating that
he is running a Non-governmental organisation under the name and style
of "Shalom Prayer House" and the same is a registered society. He states
that he is conducting prayers on every Sunday at 9.00 am. to 11.00 am.,
and every Friday at 8.00 pm. to 9.30 pm., as a Pastor. He states that the
objects of the society, is to teach the word of the God for spiritual life and
to provide medical and other assistance to needy persons. The 8 th
respondent, after denying the allegations made by the petitioners,
5 RRR,J
W.P.No.9906 of 2021
contends that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioners do
not have any locus to file the present writ petition. The 8th respondent
contends that the allegation that he had converted a residential house
into a Church is false and baseless. The 8th respondent further states that
he does not use mike or loudspeaker and that the allegations made in that
regard by the petitioners are false. He relies upon a judgment of the
Hon‟ble High Court of Madras in W.P.No.2149 of 2018 and W.P.No.2675
of 2018 to contend that his activities are protected by the provisions of
Part-III of the Constitution of India.
7. The 2nd respondent-District Collector also filed a counter
affidavit. In this counter affidavit, it is stated that no permission had been
obtained by the 8th respondent for construction of a Church and relied
upon the statements set out by the 5th respondent in his counter affidavit.
It is also stated that the 5th respondent, who had initiated appropriate
action against the 8th respondent, found that the premises has been used
for religious purposes without obtaining permission from the District
Collector in accordance with the Rules issued under G.O.Ms.No.67 as
amended by G.O.Ms.No.376 dated 29.11.2012.
8. Heard Sri K.S.Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners, learned Government Pleader appearing for the 2nd respondent,
Sri Koti Reddy Idamakanti, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 5 th
respondent and Sri Boda Rakesh Naik, learned counsel appearing for the
8th respondent.
9. Every citizen is entitled for protection of his fundamental
rights enumerated in Part-III of the Constitution of India. Article 25 of the
Constitution protects the rights of all persons to freedom of conscience
and the right to freely profess and protect religion. However, this right is
6 RRR,J
W.P.No.9906 of 2021
subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of
Part-III of the Constitution. This would mean that the right of professing
any religion is circumscribed by the need to maintain public order and to
ensure that exercise of such a right does not affect the health or the
moral standards of the society.
10. The Government had initially issued G.O.Ms.No.67
prescribing Rules for making layouts for constructing any buildings in
villages and Gram Panchayats. Subsequently, G.O.Ms.No.376 dated
29.11.2012, amended G.O.Ms. No. 67, by introducing Rule 26(4), which
reads as follows:
"No site shall be used for construction of the building
intended for public worship (or) religious purposes without
the prior approval of the Collector of the District".
11. This rule has apparently been introduced to ensure that
unregulated construction of buildings of public worship does not lead to
any problems of public order or breakdown of public order.
12. It is the admitted case of the 8th respondent that prayers are
being conducted for the general public in the house of the 8th respondent.
In such a situation, the said house of the 8th respondent would have to be
treated as a place of public worship. Rule 26(4) of the layout and building
Rules requires that no such buildings of public worship can be constructed
without obtaining necessary permission from the District Collector. It is
the contention of all the official respondents that no such permission has
been taken by the 8th respondent. Even the 8th respondent does not deny
or dispute this fact.
13. In the circumstances, it must be held that the conduct of
any prayers involving members of the public cannot be held in the house
7 RRR,J
W.P.No.9906 of 2021
of the 8th respondent until and unless appropriate permissions are
obtained from the District Collector.
14. As far as the use of loudspeakers is concerned,
G.O.Ms.No.172 dated 12.10.2010 issued by the Government of A.P., shall
be applicable. Clause-3 stipulates that noise beyond 55 decibels during
day time and 45 decibels during night time is not permissible in a
residential area. Further Clauses-4 & 5 stipulate that the noise levels in
any area/zone cannot exceed the ambient air quality standard as specified
in the schedule. Volume of public loudspeakers etc., emitting noise or any
activity cannot exceed the noise limit by more than 10 decibels of the
prescribed standard. This would again mean that the noise levels in a
residential area cannot exceed 65 decibels by any standard. These
requirements are to be enforced by the authority, which would be the
Superintendent of Police in the Districts.
15. In the present case, both the 2nd and 5th respondents have
contended that the 8th respondent is not conducting any public worship in
his house as prayers had been stopped.
16. In these circumstances, and in view of the above provisions
of the Rules, it would be appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a
direction to the 2nd and 5th respondents not to permit or allow the 8th
respondent to conduct any acts of public worship in his house situated in
D.No.6-13/1 of Bendamurlanka Village, Allavaram Mandal, East Godavari
District, unless and until appropriate permissions are granted under Rule
26 of the layout and building Rules.
17. As far as usage of loudspeakers is concerned, it would be
open to the petitioners to file appropriate applications before the
Superintendent of police of the District and also to the 5th respondent for
8 RRR,J
W.P.No.9906 of 2021
taking action against the 8th respondent in the event of any usage of
loudspeakers causing noise pollution above the limits prescribed in
G.O.Ms.No.172 dated 12.10.2010. However, any action that may be
contemplated against the 8th respondent on the basis of any such
complaints or representations, shall be taken only after issuing notice and
giving due opportunity of hearing to the 8th respondent.
18. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be
no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,
shall stand closed.
_________________________
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.
_____ April, 2022
Js.
9 RRR,J
W.P.No.9906 of 2021
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
W.P.No.9906 of 2021
____ April, 2022
Js.
