Kerala High Court
Sayed Abdulla Habeeb Rehman Al-Bukhari vs Smt.Sarada on 20 October, 2016
Author: Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
Bench: Mohan M.Shantanagoudar, Sathish Ninan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
MONDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/7TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938
WA.No. 2302 of 2016 IN Con.Case(C).1488/2016
-------------------------------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER IN Con.Case(C) 1488/2016 DATED 20-10-2016
.....................
APPELLANT/3rd PARTY :
--------------------------
SAYED ABDULLA HABEEB REHMAN AL-BUKHARI
AGD 42 YEARS, S/O.SAYED AHAMMED BUKHARI, THANGAL HOUSE,
KADALUNDI PO, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT 673 302.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR (SR.)
SRI.JOSE ANTONY
SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD
SRI.VINODE V. LUKA
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS :
------------------------------------
1. SMT.SARADA, AGED 63 YEARS,
W/O. BHASKARAN, KUTTIKOLOTH HOUSE,
CHERAMANGALAM, PARAPPANANGADI P.O., TIRURANGADI TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 303.
2. S.VENKATESAPATHY
DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 505.
3. P.R.BIJOY
CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TANUR,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 101.
4. K.J.JINESH
SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARAPPANANGADI,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 303.
BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.V. TEKCHAND
BY SRI.R.RANJITH (MANJERI)
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
28-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA.No. 2302 of 2016 IN Con.Case(C).1488/2016
--------------------------------------------------------
APPENDIX
APPELLANTS' EXHIBITS :
ANNEXURE A1 : TRUE COPY OF THE WP(C) No.38099/2015.
ANNEUXRE A2 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 15.12.2015 ISSUED BY THE
S.I. OF POLICE, PARAPPANANGADI POLICE STATION.
ANNEUXRE A2(A) : TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF ANNX.A2.
ANNEXURE A3 : A TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE
APPELLANT IN WP(C) No.38099/2015 WITHOUT EXHIBITS.
ANNEXURE A4 : TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 01.08.2013 IN
WP(C) No.19142 OF 2013.
ANNEXURE A5 : TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 04.04.2014 IN
WP(C) No.7406/2014.
ANNEXURE A6 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.03.2016 IN
Crl.m.c. 5131/2015.
ANNEXURE A7 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 15.09.2016 OF THE
SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE SUBMITTED TO THE DISTRICT
COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM.
ANNEXURE A7(A) : TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF ANNEX.A7.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :
NIL
/TRUE COPY/
PA TO JUDGE
Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, C.J. & Sathish Ninan, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.A. No. 2302 of 2016
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 28th day of November, 2016
JUDGMENT
Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, C.J.
The order dated 20.10.2016 in COC No.1488 of 2016 is called in question in this appeal on the ground that the same is passed beyond the scope of contempt jurisdiction.
2. The records reveal that the 1st respondent herein approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 38099 of 2015 with a contention that the place in question is used by the appellant as a place of worship without permission of the authorities concerned. However, it is the case of the appellant that the place in question is not being used as a place of worship and is used only for celebrating "Nabi Dinam" and cannot be treated as place of worship. The writ petition came to be disposed of on 21.12.2015 with the following order :
"5. This Court is of the view that if the petitioner has a case that the party respondents are using the place in question as a place of worship, the petitioner shall bring it to the notice of the District Collector and the District Collector shall take appropriate WA 2302/16 -:2:- decision in the matter. However, with regard to the use of loudspeakers, it is made clear that the party respondents cannot use it without obtaining permission and they have to strictly follow the norms of the relevant provisions while using any loudspeakers. If any violation is found out, the respondents 5 and 6 shall take necessary action."
3. From the aforementioned, it is clear that the appellant cannot use the loudspeaker without obtaining permission and that he has to strictly follow the norms of the relevant provisions while using the loudspeaker. If any violation is found, the respondent authorities (Government) shall take necessary action against the appellant herein.
4. When the facts stood thus, the 1st respondent approached this Court by filing COC No.1488 of 2016 with an allegation that the appellant is using loudspeaker and conducting worship without getting permission of the authorities concerned and that the appellant is treating the place in question as a place of worship. The 1st respondent has also approached the District Collector objecting for grant of licence.
5. Be that as it may, the learned single Judge, prima facie, having accepted the contentions of the 1st respondent, passed the WA 2302/16 -:3:- impugned order dated 20.10.2016, directing the District Collector to conduct enquiry as to whether any programme had been conducted using loudspeaker at Sincere Islamic Academy and till further orders, the District Collector shall ensure that no programme is conducted at Sincere Islamic Academy using loudspeaker.
6. The learned counsel, Sri.K. Jayakumar, appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the impugned order prohibits the appellant from approaching the District Collector for getting permission to use loudspeaker.
7. As on this day, admittedly, the appellant has not taken any permission from any of the authorities as required under law for using loudspeaker. There cannot also be any dispute that worship cannot be done in the place in question without due permission of the authorities concerned. In that context, the learned single Judge might have observed as mentioned supra. However, we clarify that only if the appellant is performing his activities in accordance with law, after obtaining due permission, application, if any, to be filed by him in future for permission to WA 2302/16 -:4:- use loudspeaker can be considered by the authorities concerned, in accordance with law, after hearing him. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Chief Justice.
Sd/-
Sathish Ninan, Judge.
ttb/28/11