Madras High Court
Raj Naickar vs S.Mohan on 7 April, 2021
W.A.(MD) No.1272 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 07.04.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD) No.1272 of 2020
and
C.M.P.(MD) No.7233 of 2020
Raj Naickar ... Appellant
-vs-
1.S.Mohan
2.The Superintendent of Police
Virudhunagar District
Virudhunagar
3.The Tasildhar
Sriviliputhur Taluk
Virudhunagar District
4.The Inspector of Police
Taluk Police Station
Sriviliputhur
Virudhunagar District ... Respondents
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the
order, dated 10.12.2019, passed in W.P.(MD) No.1151 of 2019, on the file of
this Court.
___________
Page 1 of 8
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD) No.1272 of 2020
For Appellant : Mr.M.Karthikeyavenkatachalapathy
For Respondents : Mr.K.Samidurai for R1
Mr.K.P.Krishnadoss
Special Government Pleader for R2 to R4
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was made by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.]
This writ appeal by the fourth respondent in the writ petition is
directed against the order dated 10.12.2019 passed in W.P.(MD) No.1151 of
2019.
2. The writ petition was filed by the first respondent herein to
forbear the official respondents from interfering with the peaceful conducting
of prayers in his house along with his family members and relatives situated
in Door No.7/70, Nachiyarpatti Village, Srivilliputtur Taluk, Virudhunagar
District.
3. The appellant before us got himself impleaded in the writ
petition, which was ordered on 10.12.2019. The learned Single Bench took
___________
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD) No.1272 of 2020
note of the order, dated 11.01.2019 passed in W.P.(MD) No.710 of 2019 as
well as the other orders passed by this Court in the writ petitions and criminal
original petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 and disposed of the writ petition forbearing the Inspector of Police, Taluk
Police Station, Srivilliputtur, Virudhunagar District / fourth respondent herein
from interfering with the rights of the first respondent / writ petitioner
conducting prayer along with relatives and friends at his residence situated in
the above mentioned address.
4. The fourth respondent / appellant herein would submit that
what is being done by the first respondent / writ petitioner is to run a prayer
house and it is not a prayer in which the family members and relatives of the
first respondent / writ petitioner alone are participating. Certain photographs
have been filed in the typed set of papers to establish a case that the subject
place is used as a Church.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent / writ
petitioner would submit that only in an area of 2 Cents of land a small shed
has been constructed and prayer is conducted by the first respondent / writ
petitioner along with his family members and friends and it is not a place of
___________
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD) No.1272 of 2020
worship for general public. However, it is not for the Writ Court to say as to
whether a place is being used as a place of worship or not and it is for the
Revenue Authorities, more particularly, the District Collector to say so. We
find from the reply given by the President of Ayan Nachiyarkovil Village
Panchayat, Srivilliputtur Union, Virudhunagar District, under the Right to
Information Act, 2005 that no permission has been granted to run a prayer
house or a place of worship in the particular survey number. Furthermore,
the R.T.I. reply says that no approval has been granted for the construction.
In this regard, it is relevant to take note of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats
Building Rules, 1997, more particularly, Rule 4(3), which reads as follows:
“Rule 4(3) : No site shall be used for the
construction of a building intended for public
worship or religious purposes without the prior
approval of the Collector of the district who may
refuse such approval, if in his opinion, the use of
the site building is likely to endanger public peace
and order.”
6. As per Rule 4(3) of the above Rules, if a site is to be used as a
place of worship, prior approval of the District Collector is required and he
may either grant or refuse approval. Admittedly, there is no approval for the
___________
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD) No.1272 of 2020
site of the first respondent / writ petitioner to be used as a prayer house, but
the explanation given before us is that it is only in an extent of 2 Cents of
land. All these issues have to be decided by the District Collector and not by
the Writ Court. Therefore, we are inclined to modify the order and directions
issued in the writ petition by deleting the observations / protection granted in
Para 13 of the impugned order.
7. Accordingly, the writ appeal is partly allowed and the findings
rendered in Para 13 of the impugned order dated 10.12.2019 in W.P.(MD) No.
1151 of 2019 are set aside. The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, is
directed to depute one of his officers and conduct a surprise inspection of the
site in question and ascertain full facts and proceed in accordance with law.
Such an inspection should be conducted within a period of three weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. Since the District Collector,
Virudhunagar District, is not a party to the writ appeal, Registry is directed to
mark a copy of this Judgment to him. In addition, the learned Special
Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents also shall intimate
the above directions to the District Collector.
___________
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD) No.1272 of 2020
8. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the first
respondent / writ petitioner submitted that the first respondent is also
seeking for permission to construct a Church. It is not open for this Court to
express any opinion on the said prayer. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
[T.S.S., J.] [S.A.I., J.]
07.04.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Note :
Mark a copy of this Judgment to the District
Collector, Virudhunagar District.
In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the
Judgment may be utilized for official
2. purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the
Judgment that is presented is the correct
copy, shall be the responsibility of the
advocate / litigant concerned.
krk
___________
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD) No.1272 of 2020
To:
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Virudhunagar District,
Virudhunagar.
2.The Tasildhar,
Sriviliputhur Taluk,
Virudhunagar District.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Taluk Police Station,
Sriviliputhur,
Virudhunagar District.
___________
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.(MD) No.1272 of 2020
T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.
and
S.ANANTHI, J.
krk
W.A.(MD) No.1272 of 2020
and
C.M.P.(MD) No.7233 of 2020
07.04.2021
___________
http://www.judis.nic.in
