Madras High Court
Jesus Goes Forward Ministries vs The Secretary on 2 January, 2023
2023/MHC/54
W.P(MD).No.17807 of 2015
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 02.01.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
W.P(MD)No.17807 of 2015
and
M.P(MD) No.1 of 2015
Jesus Goes Forward Ministries,
rep., by its Pastor B.Ruban ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Secretary,
Minority Welfare Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai-9.
2.The District Collector,
Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
3.The Sub-Collector,
Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Nagercoil Division,
Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
5.The Tahsildar,
Agasteeswaram Taluk,
Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
6.The Executive Officer,
Anjugramam Panchayat,
Kanyakumari District.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.17807 of 2015
7.The Superintendent of Police,
Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call
for the records relevant to the impugned order in D.Dis.C3/5141/2010 dated
19.11.2014 passed by the second respondent and the consequential order in
D.Dis.C3/32757/2011 dated 02.07.2015 passed by the second respondent
and quash the same and consequently directing the respondents 2, 5 and 6 to
process the application for building plan and to grant planning permission to
build concrete building for the existing prayer hall as a church in said
premises comprised 32 cents in Survey No.857, 857/4, 857/5, 857/4B in
Door No.87-D, Kanimadam, Anjugramam Post, Azhagappapuram,
Anjugramam Village, Agasteeshwaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Sundaravadhanam
For Respondents : Ms.D.Farjana Ghoushia
Special Government Pleader
(for R1 to R6)
Mr.R.M.S.Sethuraman (for R7)
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
The writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the
District Collector/second respondent herein rejecting the request of the
petitioner for construction of a church.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.17807 of 2015
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that
various services have been conducted in the name of Jesus Goes Forwarded
Ministries at Kanimadam, Anjugramam Panchayat, Azhagappapuram,
Anjugramam Village, Agasteeshwaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District. The
place, where the services have been conducted, was originally owned by
one Dr.C.Balakrishnan, from whom, the petitioner had purchased 5 cents of
land on 07.02.2006 and it has been constructed with an asbestos sheet for
carrying on the religious services. To concrete the said building, an
application was made before the sixth respondent. By an order dated
04.12.2014, this Court had directed the second respondent herein to
consider the representation of the petitioner dated 04.02.2010 as per Rule
6(4) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipality Building Rules, 1972 and pass
appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks after giving an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Thereafter, the present impugned
order had been passed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the
impugned order recites various factors including two orders passed by this
Court in two writ petitions, but it does not give any reasons as to why the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.17807 of 2015
second respondent rejected the request of the petitioner. The second
respondent had simply relied upon the report of the Superintendent of
Police, Nagercoil and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nagercoil, wherein
they have not recommended the claim of the petitioner. He would submit
that the second respondent being an authority under the Tamil Nadu District
Municipality Building Rules, 1972, ought to have passed a detailed order as
to why the application filed by the petitioner is liable to be rejected, but had
passed such an order to avail the appellate remedy. This order is against all
corners of administrative law as it has not assigned any reason whatsoever.
Hence, he sought interference of this Court in setting aside the order and
remitting the matter back to the second respondent to pass fresh order on
merits and in accordance with law.
4. The learned Special Government Pleader would submit that the
order passed by the second respondent is well within the four corners of law.
The petitioner is carrying on the religious services without permission of the
second respondent even as on date. She would further rely upon the report
of the Superintendent of Police, Nagercoil, wherein it has been stated that
majority of people living in the village are Hindus and RC Christian and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.17807 of 2015
that they have raised objection to run the religious services by the petitioner.
A similar report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nagercoil has also been
relied upon in the counter. She also relied upon the judgment of this Court,
wherein this Court has held that the right to carry on the religious services
has enshrined under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India would
not be automatic and they are subject to restrictions. Therefore, she prays
that the order impugned passed by the second respondent may not be set
aside.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the seventh
respondent would support the contention of the learned Special Government
Pleader and would submit that the seventh respondent has submitted a
report that if the petitioner is permitted to appeal, it would lead to law and
order problem.
6. I considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on
either side.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.17807 of 2015
7. A perusal of the impugned order itself shows that the said order has
been made without any reasons assigned whatsoever. It has been repeatedly
held that when an authority passes an order, the same shall be supported by
sound reasonings. In the present case, the second respondent has narrated
the various facts including the orders of this Court in two writ petitions. He
had also extracted the reports of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nagercoil
and that of the Superintendent of Police, Nagercoil. However, without
independently assigning any reasons, he had rejected the application of the
petitioner solely on the basis of the reports filed by the respondents 4 and 7
herein.
8. Therefore, I am of the view that the second respondent has not
independently applied his mind while passing the order impugned in this
writ petition. Hence, the same is set aside and the matter is remitted back to
the file of the second respondent to consider the application of the petitioner
afresh and pass appropriate orders by assigning sound reasons whatsoever ,
on merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.17807 of 2015
9. In fine, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set
aside with the above direction. No costs. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
02.01.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Rmk
To
1.The Secretary,
Minority Welfare Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai-9.
2.The District Collector, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
3.The Sub-Collector, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Nagercoil Division,
Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
5.The Tahsildar,
Agasteeswaram Taluk,
Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
6.The Executive Officer,
Anjugramam Panchayat, Kanyakumari District.
7.The Superintendent of Police,
Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).No.17807 of 2015
K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
Rmk
Order made in
W.P(MD)No.17807 of 2015
02.01.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
