Madras High Court
C.Arulselvan vs / on 27 September, 2022
Author: Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup
Bench: Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup
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
2/32
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.
3/32
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.
4/32 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.
5/32 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 6/32 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."7/32
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 8/32 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.
9/32 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 10/32 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 11/32 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 12/32 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, 13/32 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 14/32 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 15/32 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.
16/32 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.
17/32 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 18/32 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. 19/32 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 20/32 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 21/32 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 22/32 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 23/32 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.24/32
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 25/32 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 26/32 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 27/32 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 28/32 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 29/32 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 30/32 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.
31/32
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
32/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis