Madras High Court
Selvasingh Samuel vs The District Collector on 19 October, 2022
WP.No.27120, 27632 and 28668 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.10.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
WP.No.27120, 27632 and 28668 of 2017
and WMP.No.29559 of 2017
WP.No.27120 of 2017
Selvasingh Samuel ...petitioner
Vs.
1. The District Collector,
Coimbatore District,
State Bank Rd, Gopalapuram,
Coimbatore 641018.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Coimbatore South,
Combatore 641018.
3. The Tahsildar,
Sandaipettai, Sulur,
Coimbatore 641 402. ...respondents
Prayer:- This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the
records of the third respondent in issuing the impugned notice dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.27120, 27632 and 28668 of 2017
28.09.2017 in Na.Ka.07/17/A4 directing the petitioner herein to stop
conducting prayers without permission from the District Administration
of Coimbatore and to quash the same and consequently forbearing the
respondents from in anyway interfering with the conduct of prayers by
the petitioner in the Premises in question at Old No.7/265, New
No.7/342, Main Road (Odakkal Palayam Road), Sultanpet, Palladam
Taluk (then), Sulur Taluk (Now), Coimbatore District in Survey
No.797/3A and 3B.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Adithya Raj
for M/s.Richardson Wilson
For Respondents
for RR1 to 3 : Mrs.N.Senthil Selvi
WP.No.27632 of 2017
B.Sureshkumar ...petitioner
vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Revenue Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
2. The District Collector,
Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu.
3. The Tahsildar,
Sulur, Coimbatore District,
Tamil Nadu.
4. Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Sulur, Coimbatore.
5. P.Sampathkumar ... respondents
[R5, impleaded vide order of this Court dated 28.09.2022
in WMP.No.3709 of 2022 in WP.No.27632 of 2017]
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.27120, 27632 and 28668 of 2017
Prayer:- This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the connected records
and the impugned order in Na.Ka.07/17/A4, dated 28.09.2017 of the
third respondent and quash the same as illegal and void.
For Petitioner : Mr.Ravi Kumar Paul, Senior Counsel
for M/s.Paul and Paul
For Respondents
for RR1 to 4 : Mrs.N.Senthil Selvi
for R5 : Mr.G.Karthikeyan
WP.No.28688 of 2017
Muniandi alias Jayapaul ...petitioner
Vs.
1. The District Collector,
Coimbatore District,
State Bank Road, Gopalapuram,
Coimbatore 641018.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Pollachi - 642 001,
Coimbatore District.
3. The Tahsildar,
Office of the Tahsildar,
Pollachi, Coimbatore 642 001.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.27120, 27632 and 28668 of 2017
4. T.Balachandran ...respondents
[R4 impleaded as per the order of this Court
dated 17.12.2021 in WMP.No.2855 of 2018
in WP.No.28668 of 2017.]
Prayer:- This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the
records of the third respondent in issuing the impugned notice dated
20.10.2017 in Na.Ka.7632/2017/Aa3 insofar as directing the petitioner
herein to stop conducting prayers without conducting peace talks with
the Hindu Munnani and without permission from the District
Administration Coimbatore and to quash the same insofar as the
petitioner is concerned and consequently forbearing the respondents from
in anyway interfering with the conduct of prayers by the petitioner in the
premises in question at the residential property situated at
Gomangalamputhur Village, Pollachi Taluk, Gomangalam Sub-
Registration District, Registration District of Tirupur covered under the
Sale Deed dated 02.12.2008 registered as Document No.3308/2008, Patta
No.498, Survey No.393/B1B, measuring about 05.16 Cents.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Adithya Raj
for M/s.Richardson Wilson
For Respondents
for RR1 to 3 : Mrs.N.Senthil Selvi
for R4 : Mr.G.Karthikeyan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.27120, 27632 and 28668 of 2017
COMMON ORDER
These Writ Petitions are filed by the petitioners to quash the
impugned orders passed by the respective Tahsildars and permit them to
conduct prayer meetings in their premises.
WP.No.27120 of 2017
2. This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned notice dated 28.09.2017
in Na.Ka.07/17/A4 issued by the third respondent to stop conducting
prayers in the petitioner's premises without permission from the District
Administration of Coimbatore and consequently forbear the respondents
from in anyway interfering with the conduct of prayers by the petitioner
in his Premises
3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's father late
P.Vinobha purchased 3 adjacent lands admeasuring about 5708 sq.ft.
under 3 different registered sale deeds and he was in peaceful possession
and enjoyment of the said property. After the demise of the petitioner's
father in 1997, the petitioner's mother and 5 sisters executed a Release
Deed dated 28.01.2004 in favour of the petitioner and by virtue of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.27120, 27632 and 28668 of 2017
Release Deed, the petitioner became the absolute owner of the entire
property. The petitioner formed a Trust in the name and style of "Zion
Prayer Fellowship" and the deed of Trust was registered as Document
No.64 of 2006.
4. The petitioner convened prayer meetings on every Sunday
and other important occasions in his premises. Subsequently, the
petitioner applied for permission from Vaarapatti Village Panchayat to
construct a Prayer Hall in his premises. After getting permission from the
Local body on 07.09.2016, the petitioner constructed a Prayer Hall with
the voluntary contribution from the members of Congregation and
conducting prayer meetings. While so, the third respondent, viz., the
Tahsildar, Sandaipetai, Sulur, Coimbatore issued a notice dated
28.09.2017 stating that the prayer meetings are being conducted by the
petitioner in his premises without prior permission form the District
Administration and hence, the building will be locked if he continues to
conduct prayer meetings without permission. Challenging the same, the
owner of the building and the founder of the Religious Congregation
known as "Zion Prayer Fellowship", filed the above Writ Petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.27120, 27632 and 28668 of 2017
WP.No.28688 of 2017
5. This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the notice issued by the
Tahsildar/third respondent dated 20.10.2017 and to forbear the
respondents from in anyway interfering with the conducting of prayers in
the premises owned by the petitioner.
6. The petitioner herein purchased a residential property at
Gomangalamputhur Village, Pollachi Taluk, Tirupur District in the year
2008 and after obtaining plan approval, he constructed a House and
residing therein with his family. The petitioner states that he is a pastor
and he is engaged in preaching gospel and also praying for the sick
people in his premises.
7. It is his case that the petitioner is conducting fasting prayers
on every Friday, Sunday and other important occasions in his premises.
While so, the third respondent by the impugned order directed the
petitioner to approach the District Collector for getting permission to
conduct prayer meetings in his premises and till such time, he was
directed not to conduct any religious activity inside the building.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.27120, 27632 and 28668 of 2017
WP.No.27632 of 2017.
8. This Writ Petition is filed to quash the impugned order
passed by the Tahsildar/third respondent dated 28.09.2017.
9. The petitioner herein purchased a plot in Survey No.434/2A
to an extent of 2700 sq.ft. in Pallava Nagar in 2007 and constructed a
house with a prayer hall and he is residing in the said premises with his
family. He used to offer prayer in that prayer hall on every Sunday.
While so, the Tahsildar passed the impugned order directing the
petitioner to obtain permission from the District Collector for conducting
religious meetings in the petitioner's residential house and also issued a
warning that the building premises will be sealed in case the petitioner
does not obtain permission from the District Collector as per Rules.
10. The learned counsel appearing for the private respondent in
WP.Nos.27632 and 28668 of 2017 submitted that the petitioners are
conducting prayer meetings in their houses without permission and
causing nuisance to the neighbours. He further submitted that as per
Clause 6 of Annexure VII of the Tamil Nadu Combined Development
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.27120, 27632 and 28668 of 2017
and Building Rules, 2019, if the petitioners want to conduct religious
meetings in their premises, they should obtain prior permission from the
District Administration.
11. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted
that the petitioners in the all these Writ Petitions have constructed
building after obtaining planning permission from the Local body and
living with their family. It is the case of the petitioners that they are
conducting prayer meetings in their own private building without causing
any disturbance to their neighbours. Since the properties are their private
properties and not belonged to any religious institution, it will not attract
Clause 6 of Annexure VII of the Tamil Nadu Combined Development
and Building Rules, 2019.
12. Clause 6 of Annexure VII of the Tamil Nadu Combined
Development and Building Rules, 2019 reads as follows:
"The competent authority shall not entertain any building
application for construction of buildings in relation to any
religious institution unless such application is accompanied
with a No Objection Certificate obtained from the District
Collector concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.27120, 27632 and 28668 of 2017
Explanation -- For the purpose of this rule, the religious
institution shall mean any temple, mutt, mosque, church or
any other place of worship, which is dedicated for the
benefit of or used as or right, by the public as a place of
religious worship."
13. From a reading of Clause 6 of Annexure VII of the Tamil
Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019, it is seen that
no objection certificate from the District Collector is required only when
the construction of building is in relation to a religious institution. The
Religious Institution is explained as any temple, mutt, mosque, church or
any other place of worship, which is dedicated for the benefit of or used
as of right, by the public as a place of religious worship. Unless it is a
place dedicated to the public there is no scope for getting no objection
certificate or permission from the District Collector.
14. Though the petitioner states that the prayer hall, which is
constructed by the petitioner doest not satisfy the term religious
Institution, if the place of worship is dedicated for the benefit of or used
as a right by the public as a place of religious worship, the petitioner
should get no objection from the District Collector. In other words, if the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.27120, 27632 and 28668 of 2017
public cannot enter the premises as a matter of right, the meeting hall
constructed by the petitioner will not attract Clause 6 of Annexure XVII
of the Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019.
15. Having regard to the specific averments in the petitions and
the official respondents have not disputed that the petitioners have
constructed the buildings on their own patta land for the purpose of
conducting prayer meetings, there is no requirement to get NOC from the
District Collector. However, if there is any dedication in favour of public
is admitted or established, certainly the petitioner's building will attract
the definition of Religious Institution to invoke Clause 6 of Annexure
XVII of the Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules,
2019.
16. At this juncture, learned counsel appearing for the private
respondents submitted that the prayer meeting if assumes larger
proportion resulting in gathering of huge group, it changes the very
nature of the building and in that case, the permission is required from
the District Collector in terms of the Rules. However, this Court is of the
view that the petitioners' right to have a prayer hall in his own patta land
and offering prayer, cannot be interfered with by the respondents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.27120, 27632 and 28668 of 2017
17. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in support
of his contentions, relied upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge
of this Court in the case of Paul Thankom vs. the State of Tamil Nadu
in WP.(MD).No.10782 of 2006, dated 14.08.2012, wherein, in a similar
situation, the petitioner therein filed Writ of Mandamus forbearing the
respondents therein from taking any action against the petitioner from
conducting prayer meetings in her own house. The learned Single Judge
disposed of the said Writ Petition and held as follows:
“7.Material on record shows that the residential
place of the petitioner is being used for conducting prayers.
It is also admitted by the petitioner that while practising
Christianity, “Pentecost”, the petitioner and her family
members and others in and around her house, assemble in
her house, for conducting prayers. The objection of the
respondents is that if such dwelling house has to be
transformed into a place of worship for the people of the
locality to assemble, then there must be a prior permission.
8. In the opinion of this Court, there is no need to
get prior permission form any authority for assembling and
conducting prayers in a dwelling place. However, if there is
any nuisance caused due to noise pollution or for any other
bona fide reasons, it is always open to the authorities to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.27120, 27632 and 28668 of 2017
take necessary action under the provisions of the relevant
statutes. But before resorting to any action, the authorities
on the basis of concrete evidence, should arrive at a
subjective satisfaction that there exists infringement of a
right of others, under Part III of the Constitution of India to
enforce public order. Frivolous complaints to restrict
freedom to practice and profess any form of religion should
not entertained, as it would be affecting the constitutional
right of a person. No body has a right to affect the religious
practice of a person. Reasonable restrictions, can be
imposed only in cases, falling under “public order or
morality and health and rights guaranteed under Part III of
the Constitution of India. So long as the petitioner or or the
members of her family and others do not indulge in any
activity forbidden under law, or their actions are contrary
to public order, morality and health (2) other provisions of
Par III of the Constitutions; (3) any law (a) regulating or
restricting any economic, financial or political or other
secular activity, there cannot be interference with a right to
practice and profess any religion. Conducting prayers
collectively by the members belonging to a particular sect
of a religion cannot be restricted as it would amounting to
interfering with their constitutional right to practice and
propagate religion of their choice. This Court is not
inclined to grant any blanket direction in the nature of
mandamus as prayed for, and holds that it is always open to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.27120, 27632 and 28668 of 2017
the official respondents to take appreciate action against
the petitioiner and others, if there are strong and credible
materials available against them, to arrive at a conclusion
that they have indulged in any activity forbidden by law, as
explained in the judgments stated supra.
9. Nobody shuns a doctor, or staff or even an
employee, who clear up a patient, in a hospital, on the
grounds of caste, creed or religion. Differences though
exist, nobody would ever think of it. Blood transfused in a
hospital is not segregated on the basis of caste, creed or
religion. Nor the person who requires blood, would ever
demand blood only from a person belonging to his case,
community, creed or religion. If for his survival and
existence a person can consciously believe and accept that
all are equal, irrespective of case, creed, community or
religion, they why this hatred and division. Organs are
transplanted, Blood and body have no religion or case.
When the blood and organs of a Hindu can save a Muslim
or vice versa or even a Christian then why this intolerance.
Is there not a similarity in 'Om', “Amen” and “Ameen?”.
All religions aim at the same destination. Forms and
practices may differ. One should not forgetthat our glorious
constitution enshrines, secularism, fraternity and equality.
Unity in diversity is our strength.”
18. In view of the judgment of this Court referred to above and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.27120, 27632 and 28668 of 2017
the specific statutory provisions under Clause 6 of Annexure XVII of the
Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019, this
Court is inclined to allow these petitions. Accordingly, these petitions are
allowed and the impugned notices are quashed. The respondents are
directed not to stop the petitioners from conducting prayer meetings in
their premises in question. However, it is made clear that the petitioners
under the guise of this order is not permitted to cause any nuisance or
inconvenience to the public or neighbours by conducting prayers without
adhering to the other statutory restrictions or regulations under any law
that are in force, which can be enforced by the statutory authorities. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
19.10.2022
Index : Yes/No
pvs
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.27120, 27632 and 28668 of 2017
To
1. The Secretary,
The State of Tamil Nadu,
Revenue Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
2. The District Collector,
Coimbatore District,
State Bank Rd, Gopalapuram,
Coimbatore 641018.
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Coimbatore South,
Combatore 641018.
4. The Tahsildar,
Sandaipettai, Sulur,
Coimbatore 641 402.
5. The Tahsildar,
Sulur, Coimbatore District,
Tamil Nadu.
6. Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Sulur, Coimbatore.
7. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Pollachi - 642 001,
Coimbatore District.
8. The Tahsildar,
Office of the Tahsildar,
Pollachi, Coimbatore 642 001.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.27120, 27632 and 28668 of 2017
S.S.SUNDAR.J.,
pvs
WP.No.27120, 27632 and 28668 of 2017
19.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
