Madras High Court
G.Latha Mary vs The District Collector on 6 August, 2025
Author: S.Srimathy
Bench: S.Srimathy
WP(MD)No.17529 of 2025
WP(MD)No.17529 of 2025
S.SRIMATHY, J.
This matter is listed today under the caption 'for being mentioned' at
the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted some
typographical errors occurred in the order dated 06.08.2025 in
W.P(MD)No.17529 of 2025 and hence, the Registry is directed to
substitute the following paragraphs (2.3 to 6) and issue fresh order copy:
“2.3. In the meanwhile, the 1st respondent herein by citing the
law & order problem prevailing therein had reject the claim of said Rev. Fr.
Robert John Kennedy for plan approval, by its order dated 20.10.2020 and
recording the same, the writ petition filed by the 1st petitioner was closed
vide an order dated 03.08.2022. Though the writ petition was closed,
liberty was granted to the private respondents therein to challenge the
same. The private respondents claim to conduct a festival and the same
was rejected by the DSP, Colachel, Kanyakumari District by citing law and
order problem and also the rejection order of the 1st respondent.
Challenging the above rejection order dated 20.10.2020 passed by the 1st
respondent one Rev. Fr. Justin Prabu, who is alien and no way connected to
the private respondents filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.26364 of 2020
and on 27.03.2024 without going into the merits of the case the Court set
1/29
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2026 01:20:32 pm )
WP(MD)No.17529 of 2025
aside the 1st respondent's order dated 20.10.2020 and remand back the
matter to the 1st respondent herein for fresh consideration and to hear the
petitioners herein and any other objectors and to pass final order on merits
in accordance with law. Challenging the order dated 27.03.2024 passed in
W.P.(MD)No.26364 of 2022, the 2nd petitioner preferred an appeal in
W.A.(MD)SR.No. 27505 of 2024 and duly informed the respondents 1 to 4
about the preference of appeal and requested to issue notice to them and
call for enquiries if any enquiry is done as ordered in writ petition. In the
meanwhile, the Bishop mooted compromise talk and informed the
petitioners not to proceed with the appeal as things will be decided in their
favour. Though there were serious law and order problem and serious
objection in this regard was given by the 2nd petitioner as well as other
community people, without giving any reference to the said complaints and
without putting the petitioners herein on notice as ordered by this Court,
dated 27.03.2024, the 1st respondent herein vide his proceedings dated
29.05.2024 had granted approval for the proposed church. Hence the
petitioners have come before this Court with this petition.
3.1. The 5th respondent / Inspector of Police had filed counter
affidavit wherein it is stated that a new church is being built in Palayam
Village, Neyyor, Kalkulam Taluk, Eranial Police Station with new S.No.
109/15C, the location is situated on the north side of the road leading west
from Thingal Nagar to Karungal. To the north of this site is St. Arogya
Annai Middle School, to the east are the houses of Jayaseelan and Ranjith,
to the south is the road, to the west is a ten feet road belonging to St.
Arogya Annai Middle School, further west is the vacant land of Simon and
2/29
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2026 01:20:32 pm )
WP(MD)No.17529 of 2025
to the west of that is Christopher’s house. The site belongs to Kuzhithurai
Diocese. On the north of this site in approximately one kilometre Rajesh’s
family Esakki Amman Temple and nearby the Palavandan Konam
Vavasastha Temple are situated. To the north is the Elanthavalai Holy
family church, to the east is the Mekkodu Sastha temple. Approximately
1½ kilometre south is the Kadanvilai Bathraieswari Amman Temple and
¾th kilometre south of the proposed church site is the St. Santhiyahappar
Church from which the 7th respondent's group separated. To the west is the
Kollai Sudalai Madasamy Temple is situated. The Church Administration
has split from the existing church administration due to differences and 68
families separated from the said church and set up a thatched shed at the
current site under the name “Annai Velankanni Matha Church” and are
worshipping. Construction has been ordered by the District Collector vide
the impugned order dated 29.05.2025 (the counter has wrongly mentioned
as 2024). The other group has filed the complaint to stop construction.
3.2. On 29.12.2010 issues arose repeatedly between two parties and
cases were registered at Eranial Police Station in Crime Nos.4 and 5 of
2011. The Crime No.4 is closed as mistake of fact and in Crime No.5
charge sheet has been filed in C.C.No.262 of 2012 and it is under trial.
Subsequently on 21.02.2012 a complaint was filed stating that someone
had set fire to the thatched shed and a case was registered in Crime No.136
of 2015, but the case was closed as Mistake of Fact. Subsequently when a
shed with tarpaulin was put up, the other parties objected and filed W.P.
(MD)No.1528 of 2015, wherein interim stay was granted. But the District
Collector had denied permission vide order dated 20.10.2020, hence the
3/29
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2026 01:20:32 pm )
WP(MD)No.17529 of 2025
writ was closed. When the said group attempted to conduct festival at the
site the other group objected and filed a complaint which was registered as
870 of 2022 and sent the complaint to RDO Padmanabhapuram for action
under section 107 of Cr.P.C. and an inquiry was conducted. Subsequently
the Parish Priest of Mathiravilai Church Fr.Justin Prabhu who was also a
Parish Priest of Annai Velankanni Church had filed W.P.(MD)No.26364 of
2022 seeking permission to construct church. The writ petition was heard
and an order was issued stating that permission should be obtained from
Kanyakumari District Collector for constructing the church.
3.3. Further when inquiries were made with the people living around
the proposed church construction, apart from the administrators of the
St.Santhiyahappar Church in Palayam, no one from the surrounding
Hindus, CSI or Pentecostal Christian Communities had any objection. In
this situation based on the District Collector’s letter in
Pa.Mu.C3/1982189/2024 dated 29.05.2025 seeking report from the Police
and Revenue officials, the then Eranial Police Station Inspector submitted
a report on 19.06.2024 stating no objection. Based on this report and the
report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, the District Collector had granted
permission on 29.05.2025. The field inspection and inquiry with the people
in the vicinity of the proposed church site revealed no objections from
anyone except those from the existing St. Santhiyahappar Church in
Palayam. Hence the respondents prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
4. The 4th respondent / Executive Officer, Neyyor Panchayat had
filed counter affidavit wherein the earlier events were narrated and has
stated that based on the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.26364 of 2022 notice
4/29
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2026 01:20:32 pm )
WP(MD)No.17529 of 2025
was issued to 6 and 7 respondents, conducted enquiry and passed the
impugned order granting permission. Further stated that the said inquiry
was conducting detailed enquiry from all the sections of the area apart
from the receiving objections from the parties. After satisfying that there
was no objection from any quarters to put up the construction the 1st
respondent issued the impugned order instructing the 4th respondent to
grant building approval for construction of Annai Velankanni Alayam with
eight conditions. Based on the same, an application was submitted. It was
directed to obtain building approval from the Town and Country Planning.
Hence the application was not received by the Executive Officer. The
counter further states that the petitioner is not having any locus standi to
file the present petition. The present petition was filed with enmity. The 1st
respondent has issued the impugned order after getting reports from all the
Subordinate Officers including police department and after ensuring that
there will not be no law & order problem. And prayed to dismiss the writ
petition.
5. Heard Mr.C.Kishore, Learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner, Mr.S.Shanmugavel, Learned Additional Government Pleader
appearing for the respondents 1 to 3, Mr.M.Siddharthan, Learned
Additional Government Pleader appearing for 4th respondent, Ms.M.Aasha,
Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the 5th respondent,
Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan, Learned Counsel appearing for the 7th respondent
and perused the records. The 6th respondent inspite of notice has not
appeared either through counsel or in person.
5/29
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2026 01:20:32 pm )
WP(MD)No.17529 of 2025
6. The primary contention of the petitioner is that the District
Collector’s order dated 20.10.2020 was put to challenge in W.P.(MD)No.
26364 of 2022 and the Court vide order dated 27.03.2024 had directed the
respondents to issue notice to the 7th respondent therein (who is the 1st
petitioner in the present writ petition) and thereafter conduct proper
enquiry after calling for objections from the petitioner. The order further
directs the 1st respondent to call for report, then pass orders. But the 1st
respondent has not issued any notice and has not called for any objections
from the petitioners, hence the impugned order is illegal and violative of
principles of natural justice. The relevant portion of the order is culled out
hereunder:
“2. The petitioner wants to put up a church. Interestingly, it is
opposed by the petitioner's co-religionists. In the impugned order,
there is a reference to W.P.(MD)No.26364 of 2022, the interim
order granted in W.P.(MD)No.1528 of 2015. It is fairly admitted by
both sides that the said writ petition was disposed of. It is for this
reason I remand the matter to the fie of the first respondent. The
impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted to the file of the
first respondent. The first respondent will issue notice to the 7th
respondent as well as the other objectors. After proper enquiry and
after calling for reports from all the concerned authorities and
departments, final order shall be passed on merits and in
accordance with law. I make it clear that I have not gone into the
merits of the matter. Unless the petitioner obtains approval from the
first respondent, the petitioner shall not put up construction.”
6/29
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2026 01:20:32 pm )
WP(MD)No.17529 of 2025
The order clearly directed the 1st respondent to issue notice to the 1st
petitioner herein i.e. the 7th respondent in the said writ petition. Even
though the 4th respondent / Executive Officer has stated in the counter that
notice was issued to the petitioner, no evidence was produced. A bare
statement in the counter of the Executive Officer that notice was issued
cannot be taken unless it is proved by evidence. Interestingly the 1st
respondent and the Revenue Authorities had not filed any counter at all.
And the respondents have not produced any evidence to prove that notice
was issued to the petitioner. Even in the impugned order there is no
reference that the notice was issued to the petitioners. Therefore, this Court
is of the considered opinion that the impugned order is passed by violating
the principles of natural justice and the same is illegal.”
3.The other portions of the order remains unaltered.
16.02.2026
PJL
7/29
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2026 01:20:32 pm )
WP(MD)No.17529 of 2025
S.SRIMATHY, J.
PJL
W.P(MD)No.17529 of 2025
16.02.2026
8/29
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2026 01:20:32 pm )
WP(MD)No.17529 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 06.08.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.P(MD).No.17529 of 2025
and
W.M.P(MD)Nos.13381 and 13382 of 2025
1. G.Latha Mary
2. A.Ruban Jony ... Petitioners
-vs-
1. The District Collector,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Padmanabhapuram,
Thuckalay,
Kanyakumari District.
3. The Tahsildar,
Kalkulam Taluk,
Thuckalay,
Kanyakumari District.
4. The Executive Officer,
Neyyoor Panchayat,
Neyyoor Post – 629 802,
Kanyakumari District.
9/29
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2026 01:20:32 pm )
WP(MD)No.17529 of 2025
5. The Inspector of Police,
Eraniel Police Station,
Kanyakumari District.
6. Rev.Fr.Justin Prabhu
7. Mr.Jerold Xavier Raj ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, for
issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the
impugned order passed by the 1st respondent herein vide her proceedings in
P.A.Mu.C3/1982189/2024 dated 29.05.2025 and quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Kishore
For R1 to R3 : Mr.S.Shanmugavel
Additional Government Pleader
For R4 : Mr.M.Siddharthan
Additional Government Pleader
For R5 : Ms.M.Aasha
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
For R6 : No appearance
For R7 : Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan
ORDER
10/29
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2026 01:20:32 pm ) WP(MD)No.17529 of 2025 “2.3. In the meanwhile, the 1st respondent herein by citing the law & order problem prevailing therein had reject the claim of said Rev. Fr. Robert John Kennedy for plan approval, by its order dated 20.10.2020 and recording the same, the writ petition filed by the 1st petitioner was closed vide an order dated 03.08.2022. Though the writ petition was closed, liberty was granted to the private respondents therein to challenge the same. The private respondents claim to conduct a festival and the same was rejected by the DSP, Colachel, Kanyakumari District by citing law and order problem and also the rejection order of the 1st respondent. Challenging the above rejection order dated 20.10.2020 passed by the 1st respondent one Rev. Fr. Justin Prabu, who is alien and no way connected to the private respondents filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.26364 of 2020 and on 27.03.2024 without going into the merits of the case the Court set aside the 1st respondent's order dated 20.10.2020 and remand back the matter to the 1st respondent herein for fresh consideration and to hear the petitioners herein and any other objectors and to pass final order on merits in accordance with law. Challenging the order dated 27.03.2024 passed in W.P.(MD)No.26364 of 2022, the 2nd petitioner preferred an appeal in W.A. 11/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2026 01:20:32 pm ) WP(MD)No.17529 of 2025 (MD)SR.No. 27505 of 2024 and duly informed the respondents 1 to 4 about the preference of appeal and requested to issue notice to them and call for enquiries if any enquiry is done as ordered in writ petition. In the meanwhile, the Bishop mooted compromise talk and informed the petitioners not to proceed with the appeal as things will be decided in their favour. Though there were serious law and order problem and serious objection in this regard was given by the 2nd petitioner as well as other community people, without giving any reference to the said complaints and without putting the petitioners herein on notice as ordered by this Court, dated 27.03.2024, the 1st respondent herein vide his proceedings dated 29.05.2024 had granted approval for the proposed church. Hence the petitioners have come before this Court with this petition.
3.1. The 5th respondent / Inspector of Police had filed counter affidavit wherein it is stated that a new church is being built in Palayam Village, Neyyor, Kalkulam Taluk, Eranial Police Station with new S.No. 109/15C, the location is situated on the north side of the road leading west from Thingal Nagar to Karungal. To the north of this site is St. Arogya Annai Middle School, to the east are the houses of Jayaseelan and Ranjith, 12/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2026 01:20:32 pm ) WP(MD)No.17529 of 2025 to the south is the road, to the west is a ten feet road belonging to St. Arogya Annai Middle School, further west is the vacant land of Simon and to the west of that is Christopher’s house. The site belongs to Kuzhithurai Diocese. On the north of this site in approximately one kilometre Rajesh’s family Esakki Amman Temple and nearby the Palavandan Konam Vavasastha Temple are situated. To the north is the Elanthavalai Holy family church, to the east is the Mekkodu Sastha temple. Approximately 1½ kilometre south is the Kadanvilai Bathraieswari Amman Temple and ¾th kilometre south of the proposed church site is the St. Santhiyahappar Church from which the 7th respondent's group separated. To the west is the Kollai Sudalai Madasamy Temple is situated. The Church Administration has split from the existing church administration due to differences and 68 families separated from the said church and set up a thatched shed at the current site under the name “Annai Velankanni Matha Church” and are worshipping. Construction has been ordered by the District Collector vide the impugned order dated 29.05.2025 (the counter has wrongly mentioned as 2024). The other group has filed the complaint to stop construction.
3.2. On 29.12.2010 issues arose repeatedly between two parties and 13/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2026 01:20:32 pm ) WP(MD)No.17529 of 2025 cases were registered at Eranial Police Station in Crime Nos.4 and 5 of 2011. The Crime No.4 is closed as mistake of fact and in Crime No.5 charge sheet has been filed in C.C.No.262 of 2012 and it is under trial. Subsequently on 21.02.2012 a complaint was filed stating that someone had set fire to the thatched shed and a case was registered in Crime No.136 of 2015, but the case was closed as Mistake of Fact. Subsequently when a shed with tarpaulin was put up, the other parties objected and filed W.P. (MD)No.1528 of 2015, wherein interim stay was granted. But the District Collector had denied permission vide order dated 20.10.2020, hence the writ was closed. When the said group attempted to conduct festival at the site the other group objected and filed a complaint which was registered as 870 of 2022 and sent the complaint to RDO Padmanabhapuram for action under section 107 of Cr.P.C. and an inquiry was conducted. Subsequently the Parish Priest of Mathiravilai Church Fr.Justin Prabhu who was also a Parish Priest of Annai Velankanni Church had filed W.P.(MD)No.26364 of 2022 seeking permission to construct church. The writ petition was heard and an order was issued stating that permission should be obtained from Kanyakumari District Collector for constructing the church. 14/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2026 01:20:32 pm ) WP(MD)No.17529 of 2025 3.3. Further when inquiries were made with the people living around the proposed church construction, apart from the administrators of the St.Santhiyahappar Church in Palayam, no one from the surrounding Hindus, CSI or Pentecostal Christian Communities had any objection. In this situation based on the District Collector’s letter in Pa.Mu.C3/1982189/2024 dated 29.05.2025 seeking report from the Police and Revenue officials, the then Eranial Police Station Inspector submitted a report on 19.06.2024 stating no objection. Based on this report and the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, the District Collector had granted permission on 29.05.2025. The field inspection and inquiry with the people in the vicinity of the proposed church site revealed no objections from anyone except those from the existing St. Santhiyahappar Church in Palayam. Hence the respondents prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
4. The 4th respondent / Executive Officer, Neyyor Panchayat had filed counter affidavit wherein the earlier events were narrated and has stated that based on the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.26364 of 2022 notice was issued to 6 and 7 respondents, conducted enquiry and passed the impugned order granting permission. Further stated that the said inquiry 15/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2026 01:20:32 pm ) WP(MD)No.17529 of 2025 was conducting detailed enquiry from all the sections of the area apart from the receiving objections from the parties. After satisfying that there was no objection from any quarters to put up the construction the 1st respondent issued the impugned order instructing the 4th respondent to grant building approval for construction of Annai Velankanni Alayam with eight conditions. Based on the same, an application was submitted. It was directed to obtain building approval from the Town and Country Planning. Hence the application was not received by the Executive Officer. The counter further states that the petitioner is not having any locus standi to file the present petition. The present petition was filed with enmity. The 1st respondent has issued the impugned order after getting reports from all the Subordinate Officers including police department and after ensuring that there will not be no law & order problem. And prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
5. Heard Mr.C.Kishore, Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.S.Shanmugavel, Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3, Mr.M.Siddharthan, Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for 4th respondent, Ms.M.Aasha, 16/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2026 01:20:32 pm ) WP(MD)No.17529 of 2025 Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the 5th respondent, Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan, Learned Counsel appearing for the 7th respondent and perused the records. The 6th respondent inspite of notice has not appeared either through counsel or in person.
6. The primary contention of the petitioner is that the District Collector’s order dated 20.10.2020 was put to challenge in W.P.(MD)No. 26364 of 2022 and the Court vide order dated 27.03.2024 had directed the respondents to issue notice to the 7th respondent therein (who is the 1st petitioner in the present writ petition) and thereafter conduct proper enquiry after calling for objections from the petitioner. The order further directs the 1st respondent to call for report, then pass orders. But the 1st respondent has not issued any notice and has not called for any objections from the petitioners, hence the impugned order is illegal and violative of principles of natural justice. The relevant portion of the order is culled out hereunder:
“2. The petitioner wants to put up a church. Interestingly, it is opposed by the petitioner's co-religionists. In the impugned order, there is a reference to W.P.(MD)No.26364 of 2022, the interim order granted in W.P.(MD)No.1528 of 2015. It is fairly admitted by both sides that the said writ petition was disposed of. It is for this reason I remand the matter to the fie of the first respondent. The 17/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2026 01:20:32 pm ) WP(MD)No.17529 of 2025 impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted to the file of the first respondent. The first respondent will issue notice to the 7th respondent as well as the other objectors. After proper enquiry and after calling for reports from all the concerned authorities and departments, final order shall be passed on merits and in accordance with law. I make it clear that I have not gone into the merits of the matter. Unless the petitioner obtains approval from the first respondent, the petitioner shall not put up construction.” The order clearly directed the 1st respondent to issue notice to the 1st petitioner herein i.e. the 7th respondent in the said writ petition. Even though the 4th respondent / Executive Officer has stated in the counter that notice was issued to the petitioner, no evidence was produced. A bare statement in the counter of the Executive Officer that notice was issued cannot be taken unless it is proved by evidence. Interestingly the 1st respondent and the Revenue Authorities had not filed any counter at all.
And the respondents have not produced any evidence to prove that notice was issued to the petitioner. Even in the impugned order there is no reference that the notice was issued to the petitioners. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order is passed by violating the principles of natural justice and the same is illegal.
7. The order passed in W.P.(MD)No.26364 of 2022 further states that 18/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2026 01:20:32 pm ) WP(MD)No.17529 of 2025 notice shall be issued to “other objectors as well”. There is no iota of evidence to show that the notice was issued to other objectors. The petitioner had produced several objections filed by various parties, but none of them were issued notice. Further in the impugned order it is stated that the RC Church administration is objecting for the present construction of church. Also, the counter filed by the 5th respondent Inspector of Police states that there is no objection from any person except from the petitioners. From this statement, it is evident that the respondents very well aware that the petitioners are objecting and the RC Church is objecting, then the respondents ought to have issued notice to the petitioners / to RC church administers. The petitioners / RC church administers are entitled to a notice since they are one of the objectors. Even as per the direction of the Court in W.P.(MD)No.26364 of 2022 the respondents ought to issue notice to “any objectors”. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that not issuing notice to the petitioners / RC church administers amount to violating the earlier order of this Court, which may attract the provisions of contempt of court and the impugned order was passed violating the directions of the High Court. 19/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2026 01:20:32 pm ) WP(MD)No.17529 of 2025
8. In the earlier order dated 20.10.2020 of the District Collector it has been categorically stated that the Superintendent of Police, Nagercoil vide his Letter No.G1/12564/2015 dated 08.06.2015 has stated that there are vehement opposition / objections from various communities of the said village. Now the same Superintendent of Police, Nagercoil vide his Letter No.G1/017762/2024 dated 03.07.2024 has stated that there are no objections from any person, except the petitioners. Absolutely there is no evidence or any data to prove that the earlier objectors had not objected while issuing the letter dated 03.07.2024 by the Superintendent of Police, Nagercoil. The 2nd letter dated 03.07.2024 of the Superintendent of Police is unbelievable and this Court could infer the ground realities and also could read in-between lines. Further it shows the reckless act of the Superintendent of Police, Nagercoil who is playing with the law & order, who is the authority to control the law & order.
9. It is pertinent to record that the Superintendent of Police, Nagercoil has not filed any counter. Only the Inspector of Police Eraniel Police had filed counter. As stated supra, in the earlier order dated 20.10.2020 of the District Collector it has been categorically stated that the 20/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2026 01:20:32 pm ) WP(MD)No.17529 of 2025 Superintendent of Police, Nagercoil vide his Letter No.G1/12564/2015 dated 08.06.2015 has stated that there are vehement opposition / objections from various communities of the said village. But in the counter filed in the present case by the Inspector of Police, Eraniel Police Station states that there are no objections from any persons except from the petitioners. The said statement is total falsehood. When the Superintendent of Police, Nagercoil (who is higher authority to Inspector of Police) has stated that there are vehement opposition / objections from various communities of the said village, then the Inspector of Police, Eraniel Police Station (who is lower authority) stating that there are “no objections” from the village is nothing but falsehood apart from perjury. And this Court is intended to take action separately against the Inspector of Police and the Superintendent of Police.
10. Further in the earlier order dated 20.10.2020 of the District Collector it has been categorically stated within one kilometre distance there are 4 (four) churches. Further stated next to the proposed place a school belonging to RC church is available (it is pertinent to note that RC Church administration is objecting for the proposed construction). Also 21/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2026 01:20:32 pm ) WP(MD)No.17529 of 2025 stated that within 100 feet there is Esakki Amman temple belonging to one Radhakrishnan. In the present order the District Collector has not uttered a single word regarding the existence of the four churches and a temple within 100 meters, 200 meters, 500 meters etc. Therefore, the present impugned order is deliberate total non-application of mind.
11. As per the Circular of Collector issued in R.C.No.E1/60578/B2 dated 18.08.1982 any worship place shall not be within one kilometre. The said Circular is culled out hereunder:
“R.C.No.E1/60578/B2 dated 18.08.1982 Collectorate, Nagercoil CIRCULAR Sub: Long Terms Measures for maintenance of law and order – Regulation of the opening of new places of worship – reg.
The attention of all Local Bodies is invited to Rule 6(4) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Building Rules, 1972 according to which prior approval of the Collector is necessary before starting construction of new places of worship. It was also decided at the Peace Committee Meeting held on 06.03.1982 to follow the above procedure. Hence, all the Local Bodies are requested to ensure that prior permission of the Collector is obtained before granting licence to a place of worship, which should not ordinarily be within 1 km of the place of worship of another religious group. The Local Bodies are further informed that the grant of permission will be considered by the Collector only after getting reports from the Superintending of Police and Local Officers. The receipt of this Circular may be acknowledged at an early date.
Signed for Collector” 22/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2026 01:20:32 pm ) WP(MD)No.17529 of 2025 The District Collector has issued such a circular as early as 1982, stating that no new worship place would be allowed within one kilometre from the existing place of worship, but now the District Collector has not followed its own circular. When admittedly four churches and one temple are in existence within one kilometre distance even as per the earlier District Collector’s order (which itself is over-crowding and violating the one kilometre distance condition stated in the Circular), then allowing a new church through the impugned order is total violation of Justice Venugopal Committee’s report, G.O.Ms.No.916, Circular and all orders passed by the High Court.
12. The Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner had filed the objection petitions submitted by various other persons who are objecting for putting up new church. But in the impugned order the District Collector had stated that other religion people had not objected. The said finding of the District Collector in the present order is another falsehood. Further contradictory to the earlier order of the District Collector. 23/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2026 01:20:32 pm ) WP(MD)No.17529 of 2025
13. In the objections filed by the several objectors it is stated that the Ward Councillor had filed objection through online. Further stated there are three RC churches, two CSI churches, two Pentecostal churches, one Salvation Army totally eight churches. Apart from these churches, some of the houses are used as “japa koodam”. The Hindus are having temples like Esakki Amman (3 temples belonging to particular families), Sastha, Vanasastha and Sudalaimadasamy, i.e. totally six temples. In one of the complaints, it is stated 127 Hindu families are there and the new church would create conversion problem, hence constructing new church that too near Hindu temples would create law and order problem. It is exactly for this reason the Justice Venugopal Committee was formed. The committee has recommended not to put up any worship place nearby, accepting the said recommendation the government had issued G.O.Ms.No.916. Also issued Circular (referred supra) wherein specifically it is stated not to grant any permission to new worship place if it is coming within one kilometre of existing worship place. Therefore, the permission given through the impugned order is liable to be quashed.
14. Further this Court had perused an order wherein permission was 24/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2026 01:20:32 pm ) WP(MD)No.17529 of 2025 sought for conducting religious family function and permission was refused citing law & order problem. When the law & order problem is prevailing, then the impugned order without taking note of its own earlier orders, had passed the present impugned order, which is reckless.
15. The Rule 6(4) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Building Rules, 1972 states there ought to be prior approval of the District Collector before starting construction. But in the present case, without obtaining prior approval the 6th and 7th respondent have put up tarpaulin shed and had conducted Christmas, Ash Wednesday, Pongal, New Year, Good Friday and several functions. The said fact is evident from the impugned order. Therefore, the tarpaulin shed itself is without any approval and the same is liable to be removed.
16. In some complaints it is stated that the 6th and 7th respondents have changed the name of the village under the guise of constructing the church. The complaints specifically alleges that the 6th and 7th respondents have changed the name of the village and area. Changing the name of the village and area without due process of law and permission is illegal. The 25/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2026 01:20:32 pm ) WP(MD)No.17529 of 2025 District Collector is directed to take action against the persons involved in such illegal activity.
17. At this juncture, the Learned Counsel appearing for the 6th and 7th respondent submitted that the case may be remitted back for reconsideration. This Court is of the considered opinion when there are three RC churches, two CSI churches, two Pentecostal churches, one Salvation Army totally eight churches and apart from these churches, some of the houses are used as “japa koodam” and when the Hindus are having temples like Esakki Amman (3 temples), Sastha, Vanasastha and Sudalaimadasamy totally six temples all are within 1 kilometre, then the new church is totally against the Justice Venugopal Committee report, G.O.Ms.No.916, Circular and several orders of this Court. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the above factual position would not change, hence remitting the case for reconsideration would be futile exercise.
26/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2026 01:20:32 pm ) WP(MD)No.17529 of 2025
18. For the reasons stated supra, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order is hereby quashed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
06.08.2025 Internet : Yes/No Index : Yes/No NCC : Yes/No PJL To
1. The District Collector, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Padmanabhapuram, Thuckalay, Kanyakumari District.
3. The Tahsildar, Kalkulam Taluk, 27/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2026 01:20:32 pm ) WP(MD)No.17529 of 2025 Thuckalay, Kanyakumari District.
4. The Executive Officer, Neyyoor Panchayat, Neyyoor Post – 629 802, Kanyakumari District.
5. The Inspector of Police, Eraniel Police Station, Kanyakumari District.
28/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2026 01:20:32 pm ) WP(MD)No.17529 of 2025 S.SRIMATHY, J.
PJL W.P(MD).No.17529 of 2025 06.08.2025 29/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2026 01:20:32 pm )