Kerala High Court
The Indian Pentecostal Daiva Sabha ... vs The District Collector on 5 March, 2020
Author: Alexander Thomas
Bench: Alexander Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1941
WP(C).No.3507 OF 2020(K)
PETITIONER:
THE INDIAN PENTECOSTAL DAIVA SABHA SALEM CHURCH
MARKET ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695101,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PASTOR H.AUGUSTINE, AGED 58 YEARS,
S/O.LATE HENTRY, RESIDING AT BETCHANY, SANTHIPURAM,
SASTHAVATTOM POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.J.JAYAKUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
CIVIL STATION, KUDAPPANAKKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHPAURAM-
695043.
2 THE SECRETARY,
ATTINGAL MUNICIPALITY, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT-695101.
3 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695101.
4 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
ATTINGAL POLICE STATION, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT-695101.
5 MUNICIPAL ENGINEER,
ATTINGAL MUNICIPALITY, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT-695101.
6 GOPALAKRISHNAN,
S/O.GOVINDAN NAIR, KRISHNARAGAM, MARKET ROAD,
ATTINGAL, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-
695101.
R2 BY ADV. SRI.AYYAPPAN SANKAR
SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY,GOVT.PLEADER,SRI.AYYAPPAN SHANKAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.3507 OF 2020(K)
2
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
===========================
WP(c) NO. 3507/2020
==============================================
Dated this the 5th day of March 2020
JUDGMENT
The case set up in this WP(c) is as follows: That Petitioner is a Pentecostal church (Center Minister of Indian Pentecostal Church) and is represented by its pastor in this Writ Petition. The petitioner church is registered under the Society Act XXI of 1860 having Registration No.9/1935. This church is the Attingal District charge under the Society, started prayers since 1960 at Attingal and it has 25 local churches under its administration. The Church building is very old and hence the petitioner submitted application for reconstruction of the church building before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent directed to obtain consent from neighboring property owners for granting permission to the petitioner for reconstruction of the church building. Accordingly petitioner had given consent letters from neighboring property owners. Meanwhile, the 6 th respondent filed a complaint before the 4th respondent against the renovation of the church building. Consequently, the neighboring owners issued Ext. P-2 and P-3 statements according their consent for the reconstruction of the church building. Thereafter on the basis of the complaint preferred by the 6th respondent, the 5th respondent issued Ext. WP(C).No.3507 OF 2020(K) 3 P-4 order stopping the functioning of the prayers in the church, without even hearing the petitioner.
2. It is in the light of these averments and contentions that the petitioenr has filed this instant wp(c) with the following prayers. (I) To call for records leading to issuance of Ext.P4 order dated 16/01/2020 from the 5th respondent and quash ext.P4 order by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the interest of justice.
3. Heard Sri.J. Jayakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. K. Amminikutty, learned Government Pleader appearing for R1, R3 and R4, Sri. Ayyapa Sankar, learned counsel appearing for R2 and R5 (Attingal Municipality). Though notice has been duly served on R6, there is no appearance for that party. Petitioner is extremely aggrieved by Ext.P4 order dated 16/01/2020 issued by the 5 th respondent Municipal Engineer, whereby it has been ordered that the petitioner-Church should not use the building in question for the purpose of worship. Ext.P4 order dated 16/01/2020 issued by the 5 th respondent Municipal Engineer, Attingal Municipality reads as follows:
"വവഷഷയയ: ആറവങൽ നഗരസഭ - കകടവട നവരമമണ വവഭമഗയ - അനധവക്രത ആരരാധനരാലയയം - പ്രവൃതത്തി ചചെയ്യുന്നതത് നത്തിര്തല് ചചെയ്യുന്നതത് സയംബനത്തിചത്.
സൂചെന: 1. 01/08/2019 ചല ബഹു ജത്തില്ല കളകത്റത്തില് നത്തിനയം ലഭത്തിച കതത്.
2. 09/01/2020 ചല ഓവര് സസീയറുചടെ സ്ഥല പരത്തിചശരാധനരാ റത്തിചപരാര്ടത്. WP(C).No.3507 OF 2020(K) 4 മമേല് സൂചെന (1) കതത്തിചന്റെ അടെത്തിസ്ഥരാനതത്തില് സ്ഥല പരത്തിചശരാധന നടെതത്തിയതത്തില് നത്തിനയം, തരാങ്കളുചടെ ഉടെമേസഥതയത്തില് ആറവങൽ മമരകറഷ ററമഡഷ റകമടവറയമടഷ ലലനവൽ പ്രവര്തത്തിക്കുന്ന ആരരാധനരാലയതത്തിചല ഉചതത്തിലുള പ്രരാര്ത്ഥനയയം മേറയം പരത്തിസര വരാസത്തികള്കത് ബുദധത്തിമുടത് ഉണരാക്കുന്നത്തത്തിനരായത്തി സൂചെന 2 പ്രകരാരയം റത്തിചപരാര്ടത് ചചെയത്തിട്ടുണത്. നത്തിയമേരാനുസൃത അനുമേതത്തി നരാളത്തിതുവചര ലഭഭ്യമേരായത്തിടത്ടെത്തില്ലരാതതത്തിനരാല് സൂചെന 1 ബഹു ജത്തില്ലരാ കത്ളകറുചടെ ഉതരവത്തിന് പ്രകരാരയം ആരരാധനരാലയതത്തിചന്റെ പ്രവര്തനയം വളചര അടെത്തിയനത്തിരമേരായത്തി നത്തിര്തത്തി വമയ്ക്കേണതരാണത്."
4. Sri. Ayyapan Sankar, learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 5 would submit that a reading of Ext.P4 would make it clear that the impugned decision therein has been rendered not by the 5 th respondent, but on the basis of the instructions given by the 1 st respondent District Collector as per letter dated 01/08/2019 which has been referred as paper No.1 in Ext.P4. Counsel for the petitioner would point out that neither the 1st respondent District Collector, nor the respondents 2 and 5 or any other authority has granted any prior reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner before the impugned decisions as per Ext.P4 as well as the letter dated 01/08/2019 said to have been issued by the 1 st respondent District collector has been rendered. It appears that there is no dispute that the petitioner was never granted any reasonable opportunity of being heard either by the 1st respondent District Collector or by the respondents 2 and 5 before the impugned decisions recorded in Ext.P4 has been rendered. For that ground alone, the impugned Ext.P4 order is liable WP(C).No.3507 OF 2020(K) 5 to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly it is ordered that the impugned Ext.P4 order dated 16/01/2020 as well as the impugned directions of the 1 st respondent contained in the letter dated 01/08/2019 said to have been issued by the 1st respondent District Collector which has been referred as paper No. 1 in Ext.P4 will stand set aside and quashed.
5. The matter will stand remitted to the 2nd respondent Secretary of the Attingal Municipality for consideration and decision afresh. Petitioner has got a specific case that the Church building has been used by them for a very long time for the purpose of worship and that the petitioner is in the Pentecostal denomination Christianity. If as a matter of fact, petitioner has been using the church building for worship for quite a long time, then prima facie this Court is of the view that any such interdiction for using the church building for the purpose of worship, may amount to serious infringement of the constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right as per Article 25 of the Constitution of India, which protects the freedom of religion and conscience. However it goes without saying that under the guise of worship, petitioner cannot make unnecessary noise so as to disturb the peace and tranquility of the immediate neighbourhood. Petitioner church will have to use the church building for worship services, in the legitimate and proper manner and under the guise of worship it shall be ensured that unnecessary noise shall not emanate therefrom so as to WP(C).No.3507 OF 2020(K) 6 disturb the neighbourhood. Counsel for the petitioner would point out that Exts.P2 and P3 would disclose that two of the neighbours had already given statements that they are not in any manner disturbed by the use of the petitioner church for worship. It is pointed out that Exts.P2 and P3 has been submitted along with another application submitted by the petitioner for renovation of the old church building which is now pending consideration before the 2nd respondent Attingal Municipality. Accordingly it is ordered that the 2nd respondent will afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and to any other interested objectors and then will pass fresh orders in the matter in accordance with law without much delay preferably within a period of 6 weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment and taking note of the above said observations and directions made by this Court herein above.
With these observations and directions, the above WP(c) will stand disposed of.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS Nsd //true copy// JUDGE PA to Judge WP(C).No.3507 OF 2020(K) 7 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1840/78 OF SRO, ATTINGAL ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 11.7.2019 GIVEN BY RAMABHADRAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, A NEIGHBORING PROPER OWNER ALONG WITH ITS TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 11.7.2019 GIVEN BY SAID MOHANAN ALONG WITH ITS TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.PW2/9247/19 DATED 16.1.2020 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ITS TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION.