Kerala High Court
Saju K.Paul vs State Of Kerala on 5 April, 2016
Author: K.Harilal
Bench: K.Harilal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL
TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2016/16TH CHAITHRA, 1938
WP(C).No. 26472 of 2012 (H)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
1. SAJU K.PAUL
S/O.K.P.PAILY, KUTTICHIRAYIL HOUSE, KARIMPANA P.O.,
KOOTHATTUKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
2. SUNIL V.J.
S/O.V.C.JOHN, VATTAPARAMBIL HOUSE, MANNATHUR P.O., PAMPAKUDA
VIA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
3. GEO GEORGE
S/O.GEORGE PETER, KOCHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, MANNATHUR P.O.,
PAMPAKUDA VIA., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K.
SRI.LIJU. M.P
RESPONDENT(S):
-------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF
LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS
KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682030.
4. THIRUMARADI GRAMA PANCHAYAT
THIRUMARADI P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK-686673,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY.
5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682011.
6. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686673.
7. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
PIRAVAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686664.
8. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
KOOTHATTUKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686662.
9. MORAN MAR BASELIOUS MARTHOMA DIDIMOS
DEVALOKAM, MUTTAMBALAM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686004.
10. MORAN MAR BASELIOS MARTHOMA PAULOSE II
CATHOLICOSE-CUM-MALANKARA METROPOLITAN, DEVALOKAM,
MUTTAMBALAM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686004.
11. FR.ELIAS JOHN MANNATHIKULAM
S/O.FR.M.C.JOHN, MANNATHIKULAM HOUSE, ONAKKOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT-686667.
12. FR.VIJU ELIAS
MAR GREGORIOUS STUDY CENTRE, OLIYAPURAM P.O., VALIYAPADAM,
MANNATHUR VIA., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686662.
*13. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KERALA
*14. THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,ERNAKULAM (RURAL)
*(ADDL.RESPONDENTS 13 AND 14 ARE SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER JUDGMENT
DATED 5.4.2016)
BY STATE ATTORNEY SRI.K.PADMALAYAN
R11 & 12 BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
R11 & 12 BY ADV. SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE
R11 & 12 BY ADV. SRI.P.PRIJITH
R4 BY ADV. SRI.MATHAI VARKEY MUTHIRENTHY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-04-2016,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) NO.26472/2012
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT-P1: TRUE COPY OF G.O.(P) NO.9/2002/HOME DATED 16.01.2002.
EXHIBIT-P2: TRUE COPY OF THE MASS REPRESENTATION DATED 17.10.2011
SUBMITTED BEFORE THE RESPONDENT NO.5.
EXHIBIT-P3: TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT DATED 17.12.2010 ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.4.
EXHIBIT-P4: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 19.4.2012 SUBMITTED BEFORE
THE RESPONDENT NO.4.
EXHIBIT-P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 25.04.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.4 TO THE RESPONDENT NO.5.
EXHIBIT-P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 26.04.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE
VILLAGE OFFICER TO THE RESPONDENT NO.6.
EXHIBIT-P7: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 02.05.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.8 TO THE RESPONDENT NO.6.
EXHIBIT-P8: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12.09.2012.
EXHIBIT-P9: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 11.10.2012 ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.4 TO THE RESPONDENT NO.9.
EXHIBIT-P10: TRUE COPY OF APPEAL NO.847/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE TRIBUNAL
FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS.
EXHIBIT-P11: TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 8.10.2012 PASSED IN
I.A.NO.1612/2012 IN EXT.P10 APPEAL.
EXHIBIT-P12: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25.10.2012 SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONERS NO.2 AND 3 TO THE RESPONDENT NO.4.
EXHIBIT-P13: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 29.10.2012 SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONERS NO.2 AND 3 TO THE RESPONDENT NO.4.
EXHIBIT-P14: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENATION DATED 27.10.2012 SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONERS NO.2 AND 3 TO THE RESPONDENT NO.3.
EXHIBIT-P15: TRUE COPY OF THE RPRESENTATION DATED 29.10.2012 SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONERS NO.2 AND 3 TO THE RESPONDENT NO.5.
EXHIBIT-P16: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER NO.1 TO THE RESPONDENT NO.8.
EXHIBIT-P17: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE REVENUE
DIVISIONAL OFFICER (RESPONDENT NO.6) MUVATTUPUZHA TO THE
DISTRICT COLLECTOR (RESPONDENT NO.5), ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT-P18: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE SHOWING THE RELIGIOUS FESTIVITIES
IN THE DISPUTED SITE.
EXHIBIT-P19: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.8
(SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE) TO THE RESPONDENT NO.6 DATED
3.5.2013.
EXHIBIT-P20: TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.4 IN EXT.P10 APPEAL.
EXHIBIT-P21: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.8.2013 PASSED IN APPEAL
NO.847/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF
GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT-P22: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 31.8.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER NO.3 TO THE RESPONDENT NO.4.
EXHIBIT-P23: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 31.8.2013 ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.4.
EXHIBIT-P24: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 3.9.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER NO.3 TO THE RESPONDENT NO.4.
EXHIBIT-P25: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 3.9.2013 ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.4.
EXHIBIT-P26: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 29.8.2013 SUBMITTED BEFORE
THE RESPONDENT NO.5.
EXHIBIT-P27: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 7.10.2013 SUBMITTED BEFORE
THE RESPONDENT NO.6 BY RESPONDENT NO.7.
EXHIBIT-P28: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 12.11.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.6 TO RESPONDENT NO.5.
EXHIBIT-P29: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT ALONG WITH THE COVERING LETTER
SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 TO RESPONDENT NO.6.
EXHIBIT-P30: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.12.2013 PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.5, THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR.
EXHIBIT-P31: TRUE COPY OF THE QUERY DATED 4.2.2014 FORWARDED FROM THE
RESPONDENT NO.6 TO THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
MUVATTUPUZHA.
EXHIBIT-P32: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION MADE BY THE RESPONDENT
NO.8 TO THE PETITIONER NO.1 ON 3.3.2014.
EXHIBIT-P33: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 24.3.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE
DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MUVATTUPUZHA, BEFORE
THE RESPONDENT NO.5.
EXHIBIT-P34: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 27.3.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.6 TO RESPONDENT NO.5.
EXHIBIT-P35: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ATTACHED TO THE FESTIVITY OF
ST.GEORGE'S SYRIAN CHURCH, MANNATHUR.
EXHIBIT-P36: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16.8.2014 ISSUED BY ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM TO R4 & OTHERS.
EXHIBIT-P37: TRUE COPY OF THE PROHIBITORY ORDER (NOTICE) ON 23.7.2015
ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.6.
EXHIBIT-P38: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 13.3.2015 PASSED BY THE
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT-P39: TRUE COPY OF THE WEDDING INVITATION IN CONNECTION WITH THE
MARRIAGE OF BASIL AND BINIYA TO BE HELD ON 25.10.2015.
EXHIBIT-P40: TRUE COPY OF GO(P)NO.217/05/HOME DATED 25.7.2005 WITH
'MANUAL OF GUIDELINES TO PREVENT AND CONTROL COMMUNAL
DISTURBANCES AND TO PROMOTE COMMUNAL HARMONY-2005'.
EXHIBIT-P41: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE TAHSILDAR TO THE
RDO, MUVATTUPUZHA (RESPONDENT NO.6) ON 24.2.2016.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT-R11(a): TRUE COPY OF KERALA PANCHAYAT BUILDING
(REGULARIZATION OF UNAUTHORISED CONSTRUCTION) RULES,
2014.
/TRUE COPY/
VPS PS TO JUDGE
K.HARILAL, J.
---------------------
W.P.(C) No.26472 of 2012
--------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of April, 2016
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners are residents of the 4th respondent Grama Panchayat. The respondents 9 and 10 had obtained Ext.P3 building permit, for the construction of a building to conduct a 'study centre' and thereafter put up a building under the said permit. In the application seeking building permit, it was stated that the building was intended for conducting classes imparting education of the preachings of Jesus Christ. But, according to the petitioners, after the completion of the building under the guise of 'study centre', they started performance of religious services, including holly mass, marriage, baptism etc. and appointed the respondents 11 and 12 as Vicar and Assistant Vicar respectively, in violation of the purpose for which the W.P.(C) No.26472/2012 2 building permit was granted. Further, the petitioners submit that for conducting such religious ceremonies or worship, the building should have been put up, after obtaining sanction of the 5th respondent, the District Collector, in advance, as insisted by Ext.P1 Government Order, which, at present, stands substituted, by Ext.P40 Government Order dated 25.07.2005, captioned as 'Manual of Guidelines to Prevent and Control Communal Disturbances and to Promote Communal Harmony 2005'. Thus, the present usage of the building is in violation of the purpose for which Ext.P3 permit was granted.
2. Aggrieved by the illegal usage of the said building, which is conducive to communal disharmony and unrest in the locality, the petitioners and others had preferred a mass complaint before the 4th respondent Panchayat and the Panchayat passed Ext.P9 order, refusing building number and occupancy certificate to the building and further directed the respondents 10 to 12, not to conduct any kind of religious ceremonies or worship in the said building.
W.P.(C) No.26472/2012 3
3. Aggrieved by Ext.P9, the respondents 9 and 10 had preferred Ext.P10 statutory appeal before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions and the Tribunal admitted the appeal and passed Ext.P11 interim order, directing respondents 10 to 12, to obtain permission from the District Collector, for conducting Holly mass and other religious ceremonies in the building and prohibited conduct of holly mass and other religious ceremonies in that building, without the permission of the District Collector. Thereafter, the appeal was heard and the Tribunal passed Ext.P21 order, confirming Ext.P9 order under challenge and dismissed the appeal. In Ext.P21 order the Tribunal unequivocally held that the respondents 10 to 12 are bound to obey Ext.P9 order; but they have disobeyed the order by performing religious ceremonies and worship and has also installed facilities for doing religious worship. Thus,hthe said proceedings which culminated in Ext.P21 have attained finality as respondents 10 to 12 have not challenged Ext.P21 order, so far.
W.P.(C) No.26472/2012 4
4. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondents 10 to 12 are conducting religious ceremonies and worship including holly mass, marriages, baptism etc., in violation of Ext.P3 permit under which the building was constructed, Ext.P40 Government order dated 25.7.2005 and Ext.P21 order passed by the Tribunal. In the above circumstances, the petitioners have preferred Ext.P12 mass representation before the 4th respondent. But, nothing could be worked out in the legal perspective to prevent the illegal usage of the building by the respondents 10 to 12, which caused a tense situation in the locality. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioners made Ext.P14 representation before the third respondent and Ext.P15 representation before the 5th respondent. After going through the relevant papers and having convinced of the seriousness of the situation, the 5th respondent issued order directing the 6th respondent to take necessary action. But, the 6th respondent has not taken any action to prevent the illegal activities which are made under the guise of 'study centre', without the W.P.(C) No.26472/2012 5 permission of the 5th respondent. Thus, all the Authorities are taking a lukewarm attitude and as a consequence of the same, nothing is being worked out as contemplated under law.
5. Thereafter the petitioners submitted Ext.P16 representation before the 8th respondent to curb the illegal activities which are being conducted under the leadership of the respondents 10 to 12. Thus the petitioners and others in the locality are put to much hardship and difficulties by the illegal usage of the building by the respondents 10 to 12 and their men. More importantly, the peace and harmony among the people in the locality, having different religious belief and worship, are, at present, at a great loss and made a situation of unrest and that affected the peaceful life of the residents of the Panchayat. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to issue writ of mandamus or other direction, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to see that Ext.P1, P9 and P11 orders are complied with in its full spirit and to make sure that no religious services including W.P.(C) No.26472/2012 6 holly mass, marriages baptism etc., are being taken place in the building covered by Ext.P3.
6. Respondents 10 to 12 filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations levelled against them in the writ petition. They have not denied the averment that Ext.P3 permit was granted for commercial purpose only. It is contended that Ext.P1 Government order is not in force and has been repelled by subsequent Government order passed in 2005. According to them, the functioning of the study centre does not affect the communal harmony in the locality and they have not conducted any holly mass in the study centre and no religious ceremonies like marriages, baptism etc., have been conducted in the building. It is also contended that Ext.P6 and P7 reports were made only at the behest and undue influence of the petitioners and their splinter group. Ext.P9 was issued at the insistence of the petitioners and without conducting any local enquiry or inspection and without affording to the 10th respondent an opportunity of being heard. They contended that the petitioners originally belonged to W.P.(C) No.26472/2012 7 Malankara Church but after the election to Malankara Association in March, 2002, a group claiming to Jacobite group disassociated from Malankara Church and formed a separate Church. The complaints are as a sequel to such disassociation from Malankara Church. The present issue is the result of factional feud between two factions of the same religion. All the allegations in Exts.P12 and P16 are baseless and unfounded.
7. The petitioners filed a reply affidavit denying the contentions raised in the counter affidavit filed by respondents 10 to 12. The 4th respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that on the basis of the complaints filed by the petitioners, the 4th respondent Panchayat had issued a stop memo to the ninth respondent not to conduct any holly mass or religious functions in the said study centre. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the writ petition are partially admitted as correct. It is also admitted that the 4th respondent had issued Ext.P3 building permit for the purpose of conducting a 'study centre' only and that respondents 10 to 12 have no right to conduct any W.P.(C) No.26472/2012 8 religious ceremonies, in accordance with Ext.P3 building permit granted to them. Even though the 9th respondent applied for granting number to the building, after enquiry, the number was not allotted, in view of the illegal usage of the building. Thereafter the 4th respondent received complaints filed by the petitioners alleging the performance of religious ceremonies in that building in violation of the building permit and Ext.P40 Government Order and after enquiry, the 4th respondent had issued Ext.P9 order directing the respondents 10 to 12 not to conduct religious ceremonies, worships and marriages in the building.
8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents 10 to 12 and the learned Government Pleader.
9. Broadly, the question to be considered is, whether there is any reason or circumstances warranting interference of this Court with the matter in issue involved in this writ petition, by allowing the reliefs W.P.(C) No.26472/2012 9 prayed for, invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction and power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondents 10 to 11 had obtained Ext.P3 building permit for the construction of a 'study centre' only and thereafter they have been performing religious ceremonies and worship, in the said building in violation of Ext.P3 permit and Ext.P1 Government order which stands substituted by Ext.P40 Government order dated 25.7.2005, captioned as "Manual of Guidelines to Prevent and Control Communal Disturbances and to Promote Communal Harmony, 2005,". Clause 23 of Ext.P40, prohibits religious performance, without obtaining sanction of the District Collector. On a combined reading of Ext.P1 and Ext.P40 it is seen that the Manual of Guidelines to Prevent and Control Communal Disturbances and to Promote Communal Harmony, 2002, stands subsequently re- issued in the year 2005 with certain modifications as Manual of Guidelines to Prevent and Control Communal Disturbances and to Promote Communal Harmony, 2005 W.P.(C) No.26472/2012 10 and the same has been published through G.O.(P) No.217/05/Home dated 25.7.2005. Though respondents 10 to 12 contended that Ext.P1 is not in force at present, it is seen that Ext.P1 has been substituted by Ext.P40 with more rigorous and efficacious provisions than Ext.P1 to prevent unlawful usage of the building for religious ceremonies and worship and to equip the District Administration to deal with communal violence firmly. Therefore, the contention that Ext.P1 is not in force stands rejected at the threshold, in view of Ext.P40. Going by Ext.P40 it is seen that the matter in issue involved in this writ petition centers around Clauses 23, 23(a)(i), 23(a)(ii) and 25 which reads as follows:
"23. Any construction of religious place should be made only with prior approval of the District Authorities and at the earmarked place. Cases of construction of unauthorised religious places should be dealt with severely under existing laws. Negligence on the part of the District Administration in implementing this direction should be seriously viewed and the guilty dealt with. W.P.(C) No.26472/2012 11 23(a)(i) Renovation of existing places of worship can be undertaken after informing the matter to the District Administration. However, any addition or expansion to the existing structure should be done only with the previous permission and concurrence of the District Administration. This addition or expansion should not in any way cause any inconvenience to the public, should not obstruct traffic, should not be an impediment to the future expansion of roads and other public amenities. Any addition or expansion can be undertaken only with observing the building rules and with the prior permission of Town Planning Department or Local Self Government, as the case may be:
(ii) Any new construction of a place of worship shall be done only with the clearance of the District Administration. Any religious activities centered around a newly established places of worship should not precipitate communal tension or law and order situation before sanctioning requests for construction of new places of religious worship, the District Administration should ensure this. In such cases the District W.P.(C) No.26472/2012 12 Administration may take recourse to shift the places of worship after arriving at a consensus with the parties concerned.
25. The places of worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.
This Act provides that no person shall convert any place of worship of any religious denomination or any section thereof into a place of worship of a different section of the same religious denomination or of a different religious denomination or any section thereof. The Act also provides that the religious character of a place of worship existing on the 15th day of August, 1947 shall continue to be the same as existed on that day."
(emphasis supplied)
10. It is the case of the petitioners that even though they have filed Exts.P14, P15 and P16 representations before the competent authorities of the district administration, they have not taken any steps to prevent the illegal usage of the building, which was constructed under Ext.P3 permit for commercial purpose. Going by W.P.(C) No.26472/2012 13 Ext.P37 order produced along with I.A.No.15641 of 2015, it is seen that the 6th respondent has issued notice on 23.7.2015 prohibiting performance of religious ceremonies and worship in the disputed building. Thereafter the Additional District Magistrate, Ernakulam issued another order on 13.3.2015 directing the Revenue Divisional Officer to lock and seal the premises, if any kind of religious ceremonies or worship have taken place in the disputed building and the said prohibitory order dated 13.3.2015 issued by the 6th respondent is produced and marked as Ext.P38. It is the case of the petitioners that irrespective of the above notice and orders issued repeatedly one by one, the respondents 10 to 12 have been conducting religious ceremonies and worship in the disputed premises, without any obstruction due to the failure on the part of the 5th and 6th respondents in implementing the prohibitory orders. To substantiate the said contention, the petitioners have produced Ext.P39 wedding invitation letter inviting relatives and friends to the marriage of one Basil with W.P.(C) No.26472/2012 14 Biniya, held on 25.10.2015, in the building covered by Ext.P3. The genuineness or reliability of Ext.P39 wedding invitation letter is not disputed by the respondents 10 to 12 and it shows that a marriage ceremony was conducted in the building after issuing Ext.P38 prohibitory order. In Ext.P37 order it is specifically observed that the Revenue Divisional Officer has received several complaints alleging the performance of religious ceremonies, in violation of the building permit and Ext.P40 Government order.
11. Going by Ext.P38, it is seen that the respondents 10 to 12 have filed another application before the District Collector seeking a permission to perform religious ceremonies in the disputed building. But the Revenue Divisional Officer rejected the said application on the basis of the Circular dated 5.3.2012 issued by the Additional Chief Secretary stating that the buildings which are constructed for other purposes cannot be allowed to be used for religious performance or worship. When respondents 9 to 10 were called upon, on the complaint filed by the petitioners, they reported that W.P.(C) No.26472/2012 15 they have preferred appeal before the Land Revenue Commissioner challenging the order by which the application seeking permission for religious performance has been rejected by the District Collector. Considering the said fact also, the Additional District Magistrate passed Ext.P38 order prohibiting any kind of religious performance in the disputed building till obtaining permission from the Land Revenue Commissioner for the same. However the District Magistrate directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to close down the disputed building, seal with lock and report, if the Revenue Divisional Officer is satisfied that respondents 9 to 12 have performed religious ceremonies and worship in the building, in violation of this prohibitory orders.
12. But, it is the case of the petitioners that in violation of Ext.P38 prohibitory notice, respondents 10 to 12 and their men have been performing religious ceremonies including baptism, marriage etc. But the Revenue Divisional Officer could not take any action as directed by the District Magistrate, in Ext.P38. To prove W.P.(C) No.26472/2012 16 the violation of the direction in Ext.P38, the petitioners have produced Ext.P41 report submitted by the Tahsildar to Revenue Divisional Officer, Muvattupuzha. In Ext.P41 report, the Tahsildar reported that when he visited the disputed building on 21.2.2016, he had seen the performance of religious ceremonies in the disputed building, in violation of Ext.P38. The Tahsildar further reported that the performance of religious ceremonies made in violation of Ext.P38 caused a tense situation in the locality and necessary order has to be issued directing respondents 10 to 12 to stop the religious worship in the disputed building so as to maintain the communal harmony in the locality. It is also stated that sufficient police aid is required to implement the direction in Ext.P38 prohibitory notice, and he sought for the same to implement the direction in Ext.P38 notice.
13. During the course of arguments today, the learned Government Pleader produced another prohibitory order dated 26.3.2016 wherein the adverse observations against the respondents 10 to 12, in Ext.P38 W.P.(C) No.26472/2012 17 order are reiterated. It is pertinent to note that this is the 3rd prohibitory order prohibiting the same thing. It could be reasonably presumed that same prohibitory orders are being issued repeatedly one by one so as to make it to appear that they are doing something against the disobedience of the prohibitory orders. In this notice also, the Revenue Divisional Officer states that he is satisfied of the violations of Ext.P38 prohibitory order, by the respondents 10 to 12 and he is convinced that in violation of Ext.P38 order, respondents 10 to 12 and their men have been conducting religious ceremonies on Sundays. In this notice also respondents 10 to 12 were required to produce sanction, if any, for conducting religious ceremonies in the disputed building from the Land Revenue Commissioner and that no order has been produced by them in this respect. That apart by the interim orders dated 16.11.2015 this Court called for a report from the author of Ext.P38 prohibitory order as to what further steps have been taken in furtherance of Ext.P38. In compliance as to the said order, Additional W.P.(C) No.26472/2012 18 District Magistrate filed a report stating that a tense law and order situation is prevailing in the area.
14. On a combined reading of all the prohibitory notices and orders and the observations made by the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Additional District Magistrate, in their series of reports, undoubtedly, it can be held that a tense situation is prevailing in the locality in connection with the illegal performance of the religious ceremonies and worship in the disputed building and that respondents 4 to 8 miserably failed to prevent the same. So also it is a clear instance of dereliction of duties by the Authorities and the callous attitude of the officials are discernible from the repeated prohibitory orders requesting respondents 9 to 10 not to conduct religious ceremonies in the disputed building, as rightly complained by the petitioners. This Court is of the opinion that respondents 9 to 10 and their men have disobeyed the prohibitory order issued by the District Administrative Authorities and there arose a tense situation causing threat communal harmony and peace in the locality. On W.P.(C) No.26472/2012 19 an analysis of the reports, this Court is satisfied of the fact that respondents 9 to 10 are not willing to obey Ext.P38 prohibitory order issued by the District Magistrate and have willfully disobeyed the said order and the petitioners succeeded in establishing an alarming situation, caused by the failure on the part of the District Administration in implementing the orders passed under law, warranting interference of this Court to make the respondents 10 to 12 amenable to rule of law, so as to preserve peace and harmony in the locality.
15. Even though respondents 10 to 12 have specifically contended that they are not performing any kind of religious ceremonies or worship in the building constructed under Ext.P3, this Court is not inclined to accept the said contention as such in view of Ext.P38 and Ext.P41 reports filed by the Tahsildar and Additional District Magistrate respectively and the subsequent reports dated 12.11.2015 and 26.3.2016 filed by the Additional District Magistrate in this writ petition.
16. In fact, rule of law stands upset before W.P.(C) No.26472/2012 20 respondents 9 to 12 and the other respondents failed to prevent the same in exercise of the power granted to them under law. Whatever be the status, all citizens are, under the rule of law, and notwithstanding the position they are holding in the society or religion, all citizens are liable to obey the orders issued by the competent authorities under law.
17. In Ext.P37 and P38 prohibitory orders and subsequent order dated 26.3.2016, the Revenue Divisional Officer observed that unless sufficient police protection is provided the prohibitory order cannot be implemented. In the above circumstances, the Director General of Police, Kerala, and the District Police Chief, Ernakulam (Rural) will stand suo motu impleaded as additional 13th and 14th respondents in this writ petition.
18. In the above analysis, I find that, at first, the respondents 10 to 12, who are found violated the terms of Ext.P3 building permit and wilfully disobeyed Exts.P21, P38 and P41 orders, must be given an opportunity to surrender themselves before the rule of law, before W.P.(C) No.26472/2012 21 enforcing the same by taking coercive steps against them. In the above view, the respondents 10 to 12 shall close down the building, constructed under Ext.P3 building permit, by themselves and surrender the keys before the 5th respondent before 5 P.M. on 08.04.2016. In the event of failure to do so, the 5th respondent shall close down the said building, lock and seal, and take possession of the same within a period of one week from 08.04.2016. The respondents 13 and 14 shall provide adequate police protection for the successful execution of this judgment, at the request of the 5th respondent.
19. Further, I make it clear that the entire further proceedings would stand relegated to the 5th respondent as the 5th respondent is empowered to pass all necessary orders in this matter, on change of circumstance and on his subjective satisfaction thereon, in exercise of jurisdiction and power under Ext.P40 Government Order and Chapter X of the Cr.P.C. The building can be re- conveyed to the respondents 10 to 12, on production of the permission, to conduct religious ceremonies and W.P.(C) No.26472/2012 22 worship, granted by the Appellate Authority, in the appeal, which is pending consideration, according to the respondents 10 to 12 or on subjective satisfaction of the 5th respondent that the building will not be used for performing religious ceremonies and worship and to ensure the same the 5th respondent can impose any condition also. This judgment will not stand in the way of passing necessary further orders by the 5th respondent, who is competent to do so under Ext.P14 Government Order and Chapter X of the Cr.P.C. In short, the aggrieved parties are at liberty to approach the 5th respondent for further orders, if they want, on change of circumstances, in this matter. It is further made clear that the aggrieved parties need not approach this Court seeking variation or vacation of this judgment as the entire jurisdiction in this matter will stand relegated to the 5th respondent, as detailed above.
This writ petition will stand allowed.
K.HARILAL
vps (JUDGE)
W.P.(C) No.26472/2012 23