Madras High Court
C.Arulselvan vs The District Collector on 27 September, 2022
W.P.(MD)Nos.18124 and 22455 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 27.09.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
W.P(MD)Nos.18124 and 22455 of 2022
W.P(MD)No.18124 of 2022
C.Arulselvan ... Petitioner
/vs./
1.The District Collector,
Kanniyakumari District,
Nagercoil – 629 001.
2.The Sub Collector,
Padmanabhapuram,
Kanniyakumari District.
3.The Assistant Director,
(Panchayats)
Nagercoil – 629 001.
4.The Superintendent of Police,
Kanniyakumari District,
Nagercoil.
5.The Inspector of Police,
Mandaikadu Police Station,
Mandaikadu,
Kanniyakumari District.
6.The Executive Officer,
Mandaikadu Town Panchayat,
Mandaikadu,
Kanniyakumari District.
1/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.18124 and 22455 of 2022
7.The President,
Mandaikadu Town Panchayat,
Mandaikadu,
Kanniyakumari District.
8.Full Gospel Pentecostal Church,
Mathavilai, Rep. by its Chief Bishop
Vinil Satheesh,
No.13/693, Kadamalaikuntru,
Mekkamandapam,
Kanniyakumari District.
9.New Pentecostal Church,
Rep. by its Founder
Kadamalaikuntru,
Mekkamandapam,
Kanniyakumari District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for issuance of Writ of Mandamus restraining the Respondents 1 to 6
from in any way granting permission to the Door No.10-13B, Mandaikadu
Town Panchayat, comprised in R.S.No.301/22, Manavalakurichi Village,
Kalkulam Taluk, Kanniyakumari District, in total contravention of Rule
4(3) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Building Rules, 1997, hereinafter
referred to under the said Rules, in terms of the powers conferred under
Section 242 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act No.21 of 1994, by
allowing the above Writ Petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Aravinthan
For R1 to R3, : Mrs.K.Christy Theboral
R6 & R7 Additional Government Pleader
For R4 and R5 : Mr.R.Sivakumar,
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
For R8 : Mr.Ajmal Khan,
Senior Counsel for M/s.Ajmal Associates
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.18124 and 22455 of 2022
W.P(MD)No.22455 of 2022
Full Gospel Pentecostal Church,
Mathavilai, Rep. by its Pastor
J.Titus,
Mathavilai, Alaganparai Post,
Kanniyakumari District. ... Petitioner
/vs./
1.The District Collector,
Kanniyakumari District.
2.The Superintendent of Police,
Nagercoil, Kanniyakumari District.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Manavaalakurichi Police Station,
Manavaalakurichi,
Kanniyakumari District.
4.C.Arulselvan ... Respondents
(R1 is suo motu impleaded vide order of this Court, dated 27.09.2022 and
the original respondents are re-arranged accordingly)
(R4 impleaded vide order of this Court, dated 27.09.2022 in W.M.P.
(MD)No.16801 of 2022)
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records
relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the 2nd Respondent
police vide his proceedings Nil dated 08.08.2022 and quash the same as
illegal and consequently, to direct the 1st Respondent to grant necessary
permission for conducting the 30th yearly convention meeting scheduled
to be held from 29.09.2022 to 02.10.2022 in the Petitioner Church by
considering the petitioners representation, dated 02.08.2022.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.18124 and 22455 of 2022
For Petitioner : Mr.Ajmal Khan,
Senior Counsel for M/s.Ajmal Associates
For R1 : Mrs.K.Christy Theboral
Additional Government Pleader
For R2 and R3 : Mr.R.Sivakumar,
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
For R4 : Mr.G.Aravinthan
COMMON ORDER
In view of the fact that the issues involved in both the Writ
Petitions are interconnected, both the Writ Petitions are taken up
together and disposed of by a common order.
2.The Writ Petition (MD) No.18124 of 2022 has been filed
seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus restraining the Respondents 1 to
6 from in any way granting permission to the Door No.10-13B,
Mandaikadu Town Panchayat, comprised in R.S.No.301/22,
Manavalakurichi Village, Kalkulam Taluk, Kanniyakumari District, in total
contravention of Rule 4(3) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Building Rules,
1997, hereinafter referred to under the said Rules, in terms of the
powers conferred under Section 242 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act
No.21 of 1994, by allowing the above Writ Petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.18124 and 22455 of 2022
3.The Writ Petition (MD) No.22455 of 2022 has been filed
seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the third
Respondent Police vide his proceedings Nil dated 08.08.2022 and to
quash the same as illegal and consequently, to direct the second
Respondent to grant necessary permission for conducting the 30th yearly
convention meeting scheduled to be held from 29.09.2022 to 02.10.2022
in the Petitioner Church by considering the Petitioner's representation,
dated 02.08.2022.
4.Mr.Ajmal Khan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
Petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.22455 of 2022 submitted that the Petitioner
belongs to Full Gospel Pentecostal Church. The Petitioner is entitled to
worship and the State cannot interfere with the believes and faith of the
citizen in matters of religion, which is constitutionally guaranteed rights
of the citizens of this country by the Constitution of India to practice any
religion of their choice. Whereas, the Respondents herein had not
granted permission to conduct convention of the Full Gospel Pentecostal
Church, which is held once in a year. Except for the COVID-19 lock down
period, it was held annually.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.18124 and 22455 of 2022
5.It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the
Petitioner that the Respondent Police misdirected themselves based on
the dismissal of the Writ Petition in W.P.No.29074 of 2011 by the learned
Single Judge of this Court that the Petitioner herein had not followed the
provisions of Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 or the District
Municipalities Act, 1920, regarding conversion of a property that the
Petitioner herein purchased as a dwelling house in the year 1990 and
subsequently, converted it into a Church for which permission was not
obtained from the Authorities as per Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 or
the District Municipalities Act, 1920. The Petitioner had approached the
Revenue Officials for mutation of revenue records for the property that
the Petitioner purchased. Mutation of revenue records was rejected on
the ground that without obtaining prior permission, the dwelling house
was converted into Church. Therefore, the Petitioner filed a Writ Petition
in W.P.No.29074 of 2011, which was dismissed by order, dated
29.10.2021, after hearing the arguments of both parties. Aggrieved by
the order of dismissal of the said Writ Petition, the Petitioner herein had
preferred a Writ Appeal and it is yet to be numbered. Meanwhile, the
Petitioner approached the third Respondent Police (Inspector of Police,
Manavaalakurichi Police Station, Kanniyakumari District), who had
refused it on the ground that in the light of the Writ Petition being
dismissed, the Petitioner cannot be granted permission to conduct the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.18124 and 22455 of 2022
convention.
6.The order refusing to grant permission to conduct convention
by the Petitioner is in violation of the order of the learned Single Judge of
this Court in Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner herein, dated 09.12.2005
reported in 2006 (1) CTC 22 [Pastor I. Vinil Sathish -vs- State of
Tamil Nadu], wherein, it is specifically stated that the right to practice
religion is a guaranteed right as per the Constitution of India to the
citizens of this country. Every individual has his/her freedom to practice
and propagate his religion. The State Authorities cannot restrain the
citizens from practising a religion of his belief and faith. The learned
Senior Counsel for the Petitioner invited the attention of this Court to
following paragraphs of the said judgment, which as follows:
"2.2.That being so, in the guise of not obtaining prior
permission from the District Collector to carry the religious activities of
the church, which permission is not necessary, the fourth respondent
calling upon a member of the church, obtained a letter forcibly assuring
them that the church activities will be stopped and prayer will be
conducted only on Sundays. Pursuant to the same, the third respondent by
letter dated 24.11.2005 directed to stop the prayer meetings, as it was not
approved by the 2nd respondent, which order is being impugned in this
writ petition on the ground that in the guise of the said order, the revenue
authorities and the police authorities are preventing the petitioner church
from holding regular prayer meetings."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.18124 and 22455 of 2022
7.The State was a party to the order passed by the learned
Single Judge of this Court, which was reported in 2006 (1) CTC 22. The
same State cannot refrain or decline permission now in the light of the
order dismissing the Writ Petition in W.P.No.29074 of 2011, against which
a Writ Appeal is pending before this Court. The denial of permission by
the State through the Inspector of Police is unreasonable in the light of
the judgment of this Court reported in 2006 (1) CTC 22, and also
misconstrued the order dismissing the Writ Petition in W.P.No.29074 of
2011. It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner
that the Writ Petition dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court
is with regard to the mutation of revenue records and it has no bearing
on the right to freedom of expression and religious practice guaranteed
under the Constitution. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel for the
Petitioner seeks to issue Mandamus against the Respondents.
8.The intervenor, C.Arulselvan, sought permission of this Court
to implead himself as fourth Respondent in this Writ Petition. As per the
submission of the learned Counsel for the Intervenor, the Intervenor has
filed a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.18124 of 2022 seeking direction,
which came up for hearing before another learned Single Judge of this
Court (Her Lordship Mrs.Justice V.Bhavani Subbaroyan). Therefore, this
Court had sought permission from the Honourable Administrative Judge
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.18124 and 22455 of 2022
seeking either to withdraw this Writ Petition from this Court and post it
before other Bench or withdraw the other Writ Petition pending before
the other Bench, so that the same Judge can hear both Writ Petitions.
Therefore, in the afternoon, after receiving appropriate orders from the
Honourable Administrative Judge of Madurai Bench of Madras High
Court, the Writ Petition (MD) No.18124 of 2022, which came up for
hearing before the learned Single Judge (Her Lordship Mrs. Justice
V.Bhavani Subbaroyan) was withdrawn and posted before this Court in
the list.
9.This Court had put a query to the learned Senior Counsel for
the Petitioner, whether he has objection to implead the
intervenor/Petitioner in W.M.P.(MD)No.16801 of 2022 as party
Respondent in the Writ Petition. He orally submitted that he has no
objection. The oral consent by the learned Senior Counsel for the
Petitioner was accepted by this Court. Based on which, W.M.P.(MD)No.
16801 of 2022 was allowed and the Intervenor, C.Arulselvan, is
impleaded as fourth Respondent in this Writ Petition (MD)No.22455 of
2022. The Registry is directed to carry out the necessary amendment
impleading the intervenor as 4th Respondent in W.P.(MD)No.22455 of
2022.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.18124 and 22455 of 2022
10.As per his submission, the Petitioner's request seeking
mutation of revenue records for the building, that he has purchased and
subsequently converted as Church was rejected by the Panchayat
authorities, against which he had filed appeal before the Secretary to the
Government, which was also rejected. Aggrieved by the same, the Writ
Petitioner herein filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.29074 of 2011, which was
dismissed by this Court. Against which, a Writ Appeal is said to have
been filed, but till date, it is not yet numbered. Therefore, the order in
the said Writ Petition holds good here also. Further, it is the contention
of the learned Counsel for the fourth Respondent that Mandaikadu had
witnessed religious clashes in 1982 between Hindus and Christians.
Therefore, the then State Government constituted Justice P.Venugopal
Commission to enquire the circumstances that lead to the religious
clashes and recommend steps to be taken to avoid religious clashes in
future. The retired Judge of this Court Hon'ble Justice Thiru.P.Venugopal,
had enquired into the circumstances that lead to religious clashes in
Mandaikadu and suggested methods to avoid religious clashes in future.
Accordingly, permission shall not be granted to a person or any
institution to put up construction or construct a religious place of
worship in places, where already place of worship belonging to other
religion is in place, thereby, indulging in clashes by using the mike and
speaker set, which causes noise pollution and interferes with the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.18124 and 22455 of 2022
religious practices of another religion. A report was laid by the Enquiry
Commission before the Government in the year 1982, which was
accepted by the then Government.
11.Based on the report of Justice P.Venugopal Enquiry
Commission, Mandaikadu is known to be volatile place as far as religious
clashes are concerned. This Petitioner was not granted permission to
conduct convention on the ground that the place/premises where he is
alleged to have sought permission for conducting convention was hardly
300 metres from the two Bagavathi Amman Temples in Mandaikadu.
When the Petitioner blares mike set for high pitch for his religious songs.
Already, there is another temple, where they also performed bhajans and
devotional songs. Using mike in adjacent property interferes with the
religious believes of the Hindus thereby, resulting in religious clashes
against which Justice Venugopal Commission had already given
recommendations. To avoid it, the State officials had rejected
permission.
12.The learned Additional Government Pleader as well as the
learned Government Advocate (Crl.side), by way of reply, submitted that
based on the Justice P.Venugopal Enquiry Commission's report, the Police
had taken preventive measures to avoid religious clashes by use of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.18124 and 22455 of 2022
devotional songs of their respective religions in the adjacent property.
Therefore, they seek to dismiss this Writ Petition.
13.On perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge
of this Court reported in 2006 (1) CTC 22 and the order passed by the
learned Single Judge of this Court in W.PNo.29074 of 2011 as well as the
submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, the learned
Counsel for the fourth Respondent and the learned Additional
Government Pleader and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side), it
is found that the order passed by the revenue officials cannot be rejected.
The law and order situation in the Police Station level changes every
time. Therefore, the Revenue Officials are in the know of things.
Therefore, they had rejected the request of the Petitioner to conduct the
convention in the premises which the Petitioner had purchased as a
dwelling house, for which the Petitioner's request to convert the
residential building as a Church was rejected by the Authorities under
the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994/the District Municipalities Act,
1920.
14.By way of reply, the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner
submitted that the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD) No.18124 of 2022 filed by
the fourth Respondent is misconceived and he sought negative prayer
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.18124 and 22455 of 2022
seeking not to grant permission to the Petitioner herein. The prayer is
under the District Municipalities Act. The Panchayats are governed by
the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act. The Town Panchayats alone are
governed by the District Municipalities Act. Therefore, the learned
Senior Counsel for the Petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.22455 of 2022 sought to
dismiss the W.P.(MD) No.18124 of 2022 as not maintainable.
15.He invited the attention of this Court to Section 1 of the
District Municipalities Act, holding that the said Writ Petition (MD) No.
18124 of 2022 itself is misconceived as he had not stated in the affidavit
the cause for filing the Writ Petition. It is the submission of the learned
Senior Counsel for the Petitioner that the said Writ Petition (MD) No.
18124 of 2022 had been filed in an individual capacity as a public cause
cannot be accepted in the light of the Rulings of this Court. Therefore,
he seeks dismissal of the Writ Petition filed by the fourth Respondent, as
the prayer is misconceived, as it is filed as a public interest litigation by
an individual. No way, it is stated what the cause for public interest.
16.Considering the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for
the Petitioner, the learned Counsel for the third Respondent and the
submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
Respondent Police officials, the learned Additional Government Pleader,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.18124 and 22455 of 2022
the apprehension expressed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
is found justified in the backdrop of Justice P.Venugopal Commission,
which had conducted enquiry and gave suggestion to the State to avert
another religious clash in future. As per the said guidelines, within the
specific area of a religious institution, another religious institution cannot
be permitted, which belongs to another faith, which will result in clashes
between different religious groups as they use loud speakers to air
devotional songs or conducting speeches regarding devotion as per the in
respective religions.
17.In the light of the judgment of His Lordship Mr.Justice
S.M.Subramanian, when the Petitioner had not preferred appeal, the said
order has become final. The submission of the learned Senior Counsel
for the Petitioner regarding the right to freedom of expression and right
to practice any religion as guaranteed under Article 25 of the
Constitution of India is accepted. There cannot be a different opinion. At
the same time, the insistence of the Petitioner to conduct convention, for
which Justice S.M.Subramanian, had refused to grant relief cannot at all
be accepted, particularly, when the Petitioner had not obtained prior
permission from the authorities concerned. After purchasing a
residential house and then converting it as a Church without prior
permission under the Panchayats Act cannot be accepted under the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.18124 and 22455 of 2022
principles of right to practice religion. On those aspects, the right to
practice religion as per the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this
Court reported in 2006 (1) CTC 22, does not apply to the facts of this
case even though the Petitioner and the Respondent are the same as in
the reported decision 2006 (1) CTC 22. Kanniyakumari is a district
where there are no communal clashes or caste clashes, but it is noted for
clashes between religious groups, where, in the early 1980s, the entire
District was brought under promulgation of 144 of Cr.P.C. based on the
clashes that took place in the very same place, Mandaikadu. Therefore,
the apprehension expressed by the State officials in refusing to grant
permission to conduct convention in a place which is hardly 300 metres
from Mandaikadu Bhagawathi Amman Temple cannot at all be accepted.
This is is now distinguished from the judgment of this Court by the
learned Single Judge reported in 2006 (1) CTC 22. Therefore, the
Petitioner's right to conduct convention is accepted by this Court as
guaranteed right, but not interfering with the religious place at
Mandaikadu, which results in breach of peace. Article 25 of the
Constitution of India is not without restrictions. Reasonable restrictions
may be imposed by State Authorities. The Authorities in this case had
imposed reasonable restrictions not to hold convention in the premises
where the Petitioner was refused permission to convert the premises as a
Church. This refusal was challenged in W.P.No.29074 of 2011 which was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.18124 and 22455 of 2022
dismissed.
18.Convention is gathering of believers and followers of a
particular faith discussing the problems faced by them and propagating
their religion among others, in which large number of believers from
various parts of the Country will assemble. To accommodate them, the
organizers needs space. Also, to conduct the programmes with regard to
convention, they need space, like auditorium. Therefore, the learned
Senior Counsel for the Petitioner was directed to give their option
regarding a place other than the premises, for which this Petition is filed.
The premises means the buildings purchased by the Petitioner, as a
residential building and converted as a Church for which there is an
objection from the residents of the area, for which, the State has refused
to grant permission to convert it into a Church. When the learned Single
Judge of this Court had dismissed the Writ Petition No.29074 of 2011
seeking permission from the State Officials and the appeal is pending
before the Principal Seat of this Court, this Court is not inclined to
consider the very same building as premises for conducting the
convention. The convention can be held in any Marriage Hall or a
College auditorium or school premises by obtaining prior permission
from the educational authorities concerned where, the convention can be
held.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.18124 and 22455 of 2022
19.The arguments of the learned Senior Counsel for the
Petitioner regarding refusal by the State officials to consider permission
to conduct convention of the Petitioner Church is rejected regarding the
premises insisted by the Petitioner. At the same time, the arguments of
the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner that it is a guaranteed right
under the Constitution of India to follow ones faith or religion under
Article 25 of Constitution of India is accepted by this Court. There is no
second opinion with regard to the same. The refusal of the State officials
is only with regard to conduct of the convention in the premises for
which, the State officials had already rejected the permission to convert a
residential building into a Church, for which the Writ Petition was
dismissed.
20.Also, the objection of the State Officials that Mandaikadu
Temple is situated within 300 metres from the premises purchased by the
Petitioner as a residential building for which permission to convert it into
Church was refused by the Authorities concerned. The Writ Petition filed
by the Petitioner herein to convert the building/premises as Church
seeking direction to the Authorities concerned was also dismissed by the
learned Single Judge of this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.18124 and 22455 of 2022
21.This Court had accepted the argument of the learned Senior
Counsel Thiru.M.Ajmal Khan regarding the constitutionally guaranteed
rights to the citizens of this country to practice, to profess and to
propagate religion under Article 25 of the Constitution of India and
protect certain rights regarding freedom of speech under Article 19 of
the Constitution of India. In the light of the judgment made in W.P.No.
29074 of 2021 there cannot be a difference of opinion from any
Authorities.
22.In this case, the Petitioner had sought to hold annual
convention of its believers who will be attending the convention from
various parts of the country. The Writ Petition seeking direction to the
Authorities namely the Inspector of Police, Manavaalakurichi,
Kanniyakumari District, for granting permission to hold convention in the
premises which was purchased by the Petitioner as a residential building.
But without obtaining prior permission from the Authorities concerned
either under Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 or under the District
Municipalities Act, 1920 had converted the residential building into a
Church. Subsequently, the attempt of the Petitioner to seek permission
from the Authorities concerned was refused on the ground that prior
permission was not obtained before converting the building into a
Church. Therefore, the Authorities had rejected the permission. Against
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.18124 and 22455 of 2022
the rejection of the permission by the Authorities at the District level, the
Petitioner had moved the Secretary to Government by way of appeal
under the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994/District Municipalities Act,
1920 which was also rejected. Therefore, the Petitioner herein filed Writ
Petition No.29074 of 2011 and the said Writ Petition No.29074 of 2011
was also dismissed by order dated 29.10.2021. Against that order, Writ
Appeal is said to have been filed but not yet numbered. Therefore, the
order of dismissal made in W.P.No.29074 of 2011 holds good till date.
While so, on the strength of the decision made in W.P.No.29074 of 2011
the Respondent State had interfered in the guaranteed rights of the
Petitioner to practice religion of his choice and refused to grant
permission to conduct convention in the premises which was purchased
as a residential building and which was converted as a Church, was
refused by the Authorities at the District level. Therefore, the Petitioner
herein had approached by filing this Writ Petition (MD) No.22455 of
2022. The Authorities had refused permission on the strength of the Writ
Petition No.29074 of 2011 dismissed by this Court. It is the contention of
the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner Thiru.M.Ajmal Khan that
when the reported ruling of this Court in 2006 (1) CTC 22 as though the
Authorities are acting contrary to the orders passed by the learned Single
Judge of this Court cannot be accepted by this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.18124 and 22455 of 2022
23.If this Writ Petition is allowed, it amounts to contradictory
order from single judge of this Court different bench for the same issue
one Bench refusing the Petitioners contention and another Bench
granting the relief sought by the Petitioner which result in confusion in
the minds of the Authorities who deal with the law and order and public
peace.
24.If the contention of the learned Senior Counsel
Thiru.M.Ajmal Khan is accepted in the light of the decision reported in
2006 (1) CTC 22 the Petitioner is free to hold convention in the place of
his choice not in the restricted place which is admittedly 300 metres from
the Bhagavathi Amman Temple at Mandaikadu in Kanniyakumari District
which is revered by the Hindus throughout the Tamil Nadu and
neighbouring State of Kerala where pilgrims visit in huge numbers. This
is a place where the Mandaikadu riot had taken place in the year 1982
where properties and valuable human lives were lost in the clashes
between the religious groups for which the then Government of Tamil
Nadu appointed a retired Judge of this very same High Court viz.,
Hon'ble Thiru.Justice P.Venugopal as One Man Enquiry Commission and
the Hon'ble Thiru Justice P.Venugopal had gone into the various issues
that culminated in the religious riots and based on the enquiry,
recommendation was given to the State of Tamil Nadu not to grant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.18124 and 22455 of 2022
permission within 300 metres from an already existing religious place of
worship to another religious place which is a different religion which will
avoid future conflict between the two groups practising different religion.
In the light of the said recommendation only, in order to maintain public
peace and tranquillity and in order to avoid any future clashes between
the two religious groups, the Respondent in this Writ Petition viz., the
Superintendent of Police as well as the Inspector of Police,
Manavaalakurichi Police Station have refused permission. Therefore,
this Writ Petition has been filed seeking Mandamus to grant permission
for the Petitioner to conduct convention in the premises for which this
Court had refused to grant the relief seeking mutation of revenue records
in W.P.No.29074 of 2011.
25.If the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel
Thiru.M.Ajmal Khan is accepted by this Court, it will lead to another
confrontation between two religious groups because of the State action
ignoring the recommendation of the One Man Enquiry Commission which
had recommended steps to be taken by the State Authorities to avoid
religious confrontations in future. The attempt of the Petitioner in
purchasing the residential building and converting it into a Church
without permission from the Authorities concerned and subsequently
seeking permission which was refused by this Court in W.P.No.29074 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.18124 and 22455 of 2022
2011 and against which, the Writ Petition is filed but not yet numbered.
Therefore, the prayer of the Petitioner to hold convention within the
same premises amounts to negativing the order passed in W.P.No.29074
of 2011 by another Bench of this Court which is against the judicial
discipline.
26.The order of this Court reported in 2006 (1) CTC 22 is
accepted in toto but that very same ruling cannot be extended to give
unrestricted right to the Petitioner ignoring the recommendation of the
One Man Enquiry Commission which had recommended not to permit
any religious activities which is contradictory to the place of worship
belonging to a particular group. The Petitioner herein are not Hindus and
they are Christians belonging to Pentecostal Church. Therefore, the
representation has to be considered in the light of the past incidents by
the State Authorities. Within 300 metres if the Petitioner holds
convention, playing mike glaring speeches and devotional songs of the
religion of Christianity at the same time the Hindu Temple which is also
within 300 metres which is already in existence for some
decades/centuries in the very same place and previously there had been
religious clashes when the Authorities refused to give permission the
Court directing the Authorities to grant permission will result in breach
of peace and law and order thereby the order of the Court will be treated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.18124 and 22455 of 2022
as violation of breach of peace. The Court cannot take sides with any
party. When the State machinery has taken decision in the interest of
larger public peace, the Court exercising powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India cannot ignore the field situation thereby putting the
general public as well as the officers dealing with public peace, law and
order into a great risk. Considering the same, this Court had adjourned
the case from 26.09.2022 after hearing both parties viz., learned Senior
Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
for the Respondents 1 and 2 to 27.09.2022 and to grant an option for the
learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner that permission will be granted
on condition instead of the premises sought by the Petitioner, the
Petitioner can seek an alternative place which is far away from
Bhagavathi Amman Temple so that the recommendations of the One Man
Enquiry Commission which was accepted by the State, will not be
violated resulting in breach of peace and resulting in religious clashes
between two groups practising different religion.
27.When the case came up for hearing on 27.09.2022, the
learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner Thiru.M.Ajmal Khan after
consulting the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner insists for the very
same premises that was purchased as a residential building and it was
converted as a Church for which the order of this court in 2006 (1) CTC
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.18124 and 22455 of 2022
22 is applicable as it was an order passed by the learned Single Judge of
this Court on the very same Church while the authorities refusing to
grant permission to the Petitioner to offer prayers in the Church. That
order cannot be extended whereby convention means the followers of the
Pentecostal Church throughout the country gathering in the place of
convention which is hardly 300 metres away from the Hindu Temple viz.,
Bhagavathi Amman Temple. When there is convention the problems
faced by the Pentecostal Church will be discussed among its believers,
devotees, devotional songs of the Pentecostal Church will be blown in the
loud speaker. At the same time, Bhagavathi Amman Temple also plays
devotional songs on the loud speakers which is hardly 300 metres away
which will result in clashes. The insistence of the Petitioner cannot be
accepted under Article 25 of the Constitution of India. Article 25 of the
Constitution of India is extracted as under:
“25. Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and
propagation of religion - (1) Subject to public order, morality and
health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally
entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise
and propagate religion
(2) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law
or prevent the State from making any law
(a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other
secular activity which may be associated with religious practice;
(b) providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of
Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and
sections of Hindus.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.18124 and 22455 of 2022
Explanation I The wearing and carrying of kirpans shall be deemed to
be included in the profession of the Sikh religion.
Explanation II In sub clause (b) of clause reference to Hindus shall be
construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina
or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious institutions
shall be construed accordingly”
It does not mean unrestricted right. Here restrictions were imposed
considering the safety of the Petitioner and Public at large and also the
safety of the officers dealing with the public order. It is not the duty of
the State Authorities to take sides with one religion when there is clashes
between two groups. Therefore, as a safety measure to avoid incidents in
future, the then State Government had accepted the One Man Enquiry
Commission recommendation. The submission of the learned Senior
Counsel for the Petitioner that the recommendation of the One Man
Enquiry Commission is not binding on the Petitioner, cannot be accepted
by this Court considering riots that had taken place in the very same
place viz., Mandaikadu in the early 1980s between two religious groups
viz., Christians and Hindus. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior
Counsel for the Petitioner, Article 25 of the Constitution of India
guarantees its citizens the right to practice religion of his/her choice. At
the same time, it is subject to restrictions considering the larger interest
of the society. The right to freedom of religion is not unrestricted power.
Every right has some restrictions. In this case, earlier there was a riot
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.18124 and 22455 of 2022
between two religious groups in the same place. Therefore, the
Authorities dealing with public safety and law and order are
apprehensive considering the volatility involved when religious practices
between two religious groups which are contradictory to each other is
held in the same place.
28.In the light of the earlier incidents in 1980s the One Man
Enquiry Commission was set up by the then State Government which had
gone into the details and had recommended safety measures to avoid
religious clashes in future. When that recommendation had been
accepted by the State Government, the State Government within its right
and within its discretion to take every steps considering the safety of the
public at large. Public at large includes members belonging to these two
groups and also those who does not belong to these two groups. The
State had to take precautionary measures to protect life and limb and
also properties of the ordinary citizens residing in the jurisdiction of
Respondents 1 and 2. When that be the case, the Petitioner's contention
that the recommendation of the One Man Enquiry Commission is not
binding on the individual/Petitioner herein cannot be accepted by any
Court of Law. When the State Government had accepted the fact finding
Commission's recommendations to avoid clashes in future, the arguments
of the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner on instructions from the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.18124 and 22455 of 2022
Petitioner that the Petitioner had sought this prayer only to conduct
convention violating the recommendations of the One Man Enquiry
Commission that when there are two different religious groups one
already having religious place of worship the other seeking to set up
religious place within 300 metres of the religious place already is in
existence shall not be permitted, was accepted by the then State
Government and it holds good till date. Therefore, any action taken by
the Public Authorities covers individual including the Petitioner. If the
arguments of the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, on
instructions from the Petitioner, is to be accepted he is challenging the
State Authorities to violate the safety measures already in force. To
instigate the right which a Court of Law cannot allow it will be treated as
abatement when he intend to conduct the convention within 300 metres
of Mandaikadu Bhagavathi Amman Temple which is a religious place for
Hindus for decades and centuries which is revered by Hindus. In such
circumstances, the prayer to hold convention under the guise of right to
practice religion cannot be accepted within 300 metres of restricted
area. Therefore, this Court considering the contention of the learned
Senior Counsel for the Petitioner and the apprehension expressed by the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor, suo motu impleaded the District
Collector of Kanniyakumari District as a Respondent No.1 and sought the
services of the learned Additional Government Pleader to be present in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.18124 and 22455 of 2022
Court. Accordingly, Mrs.K.Christy Theboral, learned Additional
Government Pleader was present in Court.
29.Therefore, in the light of the above discussion, the District
Collector and the Superintendent of Police, Kanniyakumari are directed
to consider the representation of the Petitioner only if the Petitioner
chooses the place away from Mandaikadu Bhagavathi Amman Temple
considering the present Navarathri festival that had commenced from
26.09.2022. The insistence of the Petitioner to hold the convention
within 300 metres near Bhagavathi Amman Temple is rejected by the
Authorities rightly. This Court cannot give any direction ignoring the
decision taken by the State Authorities/the Respondents 2 and 3 who
were the original parties to the Writ Petition.
30.When the order was dictated in open Court, the learned
Senior Counsel for the Petitioner Thiru.M.Ajmal Khan also given an
undertaking that the Petitioner will conduct the convention after the
Navarathri festival is over in the same place. That was recorded. At the
same time, the same cannot be granted as already the Writ Petition filed
by the Petitioner in W.P.No.29074 of 2011 was dismissed by this Court
seeking mutation of revenue records in the name of the Church. Holding
a convention is different from holding a regular prayer within the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.18124 and 22455 of 2022
residential premises. When it is a convention, followers of the particular
religion plays devotional songs and conduct religious speeches on loud
speakers which will be treated as interference in the other religious
practice by the group that is other than the religion of the Petitioner
contradicting the recommendation of the One Man Enquiry Commission.
31.In the light of the above discussion, the Petitioner's
contention that their right to freedom of religion is curtailed by the State
officials is rejected. The Petitioner is within his right to conduct
convention as per the rights guaranteed under Article 25 of the
Constitution of India. At the same time, as the French Proverb says " The
liberty to swing your arms ends where my nose beings". The same
principle is applicable here also. In the name of liberty and guaranteed
rights, the Petitioner cannot be permitted to interfere in the religious
practices offered at Mandaikadu Temple, which is hardly 300 metres
from the premises, for which the request of the Petitioner to mutate the
revenue records in the name of the Church was rejected. Therefore, the
convention can be held other than the premises mentioned in the
petition. This Petitioner can choose any place in Kanniyakumari district,
which does not interfere with the religious practices of other than the
petitioner's religion. The State officials and the officials of the District or
Superintendent of Police can consider the request of the Petitioner, if the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.18124 and 22455 of 2022
petitioner chose the premises either educational institution or a Marriage
Hall.
32.In the light of the above, the District Collector,
Kanniyakumari District and the Superintendent of Police, Kanniyakumari
District shall pass appropriate orders considering the importance of
public peace and also considering the prayer to practice religion as
guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution of India which was
reiterated in the decision reported in 2006 (1) CTC 22.
33.The Petitioner and the 4th Respondent sought to appear along
with their Counsels when meeting, if any, is held by the District Collector,
Kanniyakumari and the Superintendent of Police, Kanniyakumari. Their
request is granted.
With the above directions, this Writ Petition (MD) No.22455
of 2022 is disposed of. There is no order as to costs.
34.In the light of the discussion made in W.P.(MD)No.22455 of
2022 and in the light of the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel for
the Petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.22455 of 2022/Respondent No.8 in W.P.
(MD)No.18124 of 2022 and also in the light of the Writ Petition No.29074
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.18124 and 22455 of 2022
of 2011 filed by the Respondent No.8 in W.P.(MD)No.18124 of 2022 had
been dismissed, automatically, the Petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.18124 of
2022 has no legs to stand seeking direction on the same cause of action.
Therefore, the Writ Petition (MD) No.18124 of 2022 is liable to be
dismissed as not maintainable. Accordingly, the Writ Petition (MD)No.
18124 of 2022 is dismissed as not maintainable. No costs.
27.09.2022
Index : Yes / No
cmr/srm
To
1.The District Collector,
Kanniyakumari District.
2. The Superintendent of Police,
Nagercoil, Kanniyakumari District.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Manavaalakurichi Police Station,
Manavaalakurichi.,
Kanniyakumari District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)Nos.18124 and 22455 of 2022
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
cmr/srm
W.P(MD)Nos.18124 and 22455 of 2022
27.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
