Madras High Court
Sadhu C.Selvaraj vs The Collector Of Kanyakumari on 2 November, 2007
Author: G.Rajasuria
Bench: G.Rajasuria
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 02/11/2007 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA W.P.No.6935 of 2005 and W.P.M.P.No.7542 of 2005 Sadhu C.Selvaraj ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Collector of Kanyakumari, Collectorate at Nagercoil. 2.The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil. 3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Padmanabapuram, Kanyakumari District. 4.The Executive Officer, Arumani Town Panchayat, Arumani Post, Kanyakumari District. 5.The Tahsildar, Vilavancode Taluk, Kuzhithurai Post, Kanyakumari District. ... Respondents Prayer Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records comprised on the file of the first respondent in his proceedings dated 27.02.2005 bearing No.D.Dis(C3) 20340/2002 and quash the same as unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to conduct prayer in the building bearing Door No.21/95-B, Vellamcode Village, Arumani Panchayat, Vilavancode Taluk, Kanyakumari District. !For Petitioner ... Mr.T.T.Ravichandran ^For Respondent ... Mr.So.Paramasivam Additional Government Pleader (Writs) :ORDER
This Writ petition is focussed to get, issued a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records comprised on the file of the first respondent in his proceedings dated 27.02.2005 bearing No.D.Dis(C3) 20340/2002 and quashed the same as unconstitutional and consequently directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to conduct prayer in the building bearing Door No.21/95-B, Vellamcode Village, Arumani Panchayat, Vilavancode Taluk, Kanyakumari District.
2. The facts in nutshell absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this writ petition would run thus:
(i) The petitioner herein would describe himself as a Trustee and Administrator of the Beginning Pentecostal Truth Church, Malavilai, Cheruppalur Post, Kanyakumari District. One deceased Sadhu Devenesan in his capacity as a Trustee of the aforesaid Church, sought permission to raise a prayer hall from the Arumani Town Panchayat, which granted permission and within one year, it could not be completed. Thereupon, extension of time was sought and it was granted by the Collector concerned. The said Sadhu Devenesan died on 30.03.1983. The present Trustee namely Sadhu C.Selvaraj took over the administration of the Trust and tried to proceed with the construction and complete it as during the life time of Sadhu Devenesan, the structure alone was constructed and plastering work and constructing of compound wall and latrine were left unexecuted.
(ii) The Tahsildhar concerned issued stop-notice on 06.03.1987. Thereupon alone, the petitioner filed an application before the Collector for extending time to complete the construction. But, the Collector rejected it on the main ground that if the prayer hall is constructed, in all fours, it would create law and order problem in view of the organisation of various Christian faiths existing in the same locality. The Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.09.2001, in W.A.No.1153 of 1997 in paragraph Nos.15 and 16 held that the building should be allowed to be completed and those paragraphs are extracted hereunder for ready reference:
"15. The prayer in the writ petition consists of two parts viz, to quash the order of the Collector and to direct the Collector to issue permission to the appellant to complete the construction as per the plan sanctioned by the Executive officer, Arumanai Town Panchayat and to run the Prayer House. In so far as the first part of the prayer is concerned, the Town Panchayat, Arumanai, in the proceedings dated 10.08.1981 has granted permission for construction of a Prayer House and the said permission was renewed by the proceedings dated 09.08.1982. Accordingly, the appellant has constructed the building in the year 1984 and a door number has also been assigned by the Arumani Town Panchayat by its proceedings dated 9.8.1982. The second respondent has not filed any counter denying the averments made by the appellant. hence, we proceed on the basis that the building has been constructed in the year 1984, but compound wall and latrine have not been constructed as per the building plan.
16. Since the second respondent has already granted permission for the construction or the building with compound wall and appellant has already commenced the construction work and completed the construction of the building bearing door number 21-95B, the refusal by the District Collector, Kanyakumari to permit the appellant to construct compound wall and latrine is not justified. Hence, the order of the Collector is so far as it relates to the refusal of permission to complete the construction of compound wall and latrine is quashed."
However, relating to the conduct of the prayer in the Prayer hall concerned, the Division Bench of this Court passed the following order at paragraph No.17:
"17. ... It is made clear that though we have directed the Collector to issue necessary permission for the construction of compound wall and latrine, we make it clear that our direction need not be construed to mean that we have also granted the permission to conduct prayer in the new building. The construction of the building is one aspect and the use of the building as prayer House is another aspect and the building can be permitted to be used as prayer House is another aspect and the building can be permitted to be used as prayer house depending upon the local conditions; that should not create law and order problem in the locality. Hence, the prayer for a direction to the District Collector to permit the appellant to run a prayer House in the building in question is rejected. The Collector is directed to take a considered decision on the question whether the appellant may be permitted to run a prayer House in the building in question after hearing the views or the local peace committee and other community people; till the Collector accords sanction, it is not open to the appellant to conduct prayer in the newly constructed building. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has expressed no objection for the above direction."
It so happened that subsequently, the Collector's order dated 27.02.2005 emerged and the operative portion of the order is extracted hereunder for ready reference:
"Accordingly, the Superintendent of Police, Nagercoil and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Padmanabhapuram were requested to offer their opinion after studying the local situation. In the meantime, Local peace committee meeting was conducted by the Tahsildhar, Vilavancode on 07.04.2003. The Hindus have raised strong objection for the grant of permission to conduct prayer in the new building. The petitioner was also heard by the Collector on 19.5.2003. After analysing the local situation in detail, both the Revenue Divisional Officer, Padmanabhapuram and the Superintendent of Police, Nagercoil, have not recommended for the grant of permission on law and order point of view, since the local Hindus have raised strong objection for the grant of permission to the Christians for conducting prayer in the newly constructed building. In the circumstances stated above, the request for permission to conduct prayer in the newly constructed building in Door No.21/95B of Arumanai Panchayat is ordered to be rejected."
3. Being aggrieved by, such an order, the present writ petition is filed on the main ground that the petitioner and his people cannot be prevented from propagating their own faith in conducting and doing prayer in the prayer hall and accordingly, he prayed for quashment.
4. Heard both sides in entirety.
5. The petitioner also invoking Article 25 of the Constitution of India, would air the grievance to the effect that even though under Article 25 of the Constitution of India, freedom of conscience and propagation of religion are guaranteed, the order of the Collector is quite antithetical to it.
6. The point for consideration is as to whether the impugned order of the Collector dated 27.02.2005, is constitutionally valid and legally permissible?
7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the preamble to the Constitution of India as well as Article 25, would reiterate the grounds as set out in his petition. He would also submit that the construction has been completed and the petitioner with his men should perform prayers and that is not in any way going to affect the rights of anyone; the law and order problem is not at all a ground for preventing the petitioner from carrying on with his religious activities.
8. Whereas the learned Government Pleader would contend that in commensurate with the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 25.09.2001, the Collector convened the meeting and analysed the view of the persons concerned and accordingly, passed the impugned order. According to the learned Government Pleader, the Collector who is responsible for the law and order problem is of the opinion that conducting of prayer in the prayer hall would lead to law and order problem.
9. It is a trite proposition that in India, every citizen is having the right to have his own religious faith and propagate the same.
10. Article 25 of the Constitution of India is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:
"Art.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, practice 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.
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 (2), the 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."
11. I could understand what is the stand of the Collector. The Collector is not as against the Constitutional rights guaranteed under the Constitution. However, he would submit that if the petitioner is allowed to exercise his right, it would create law and order problem.
12. Now then, it is clear in this case that the authorities are posted with two propositions. On the one hand, the constitutional rights should be protected over which there could be no second thought and on the other hand, it is also envisaged under the Constitution that the State is responsible for maintaining the public order as well as the law and order.
13. The order of the Collector in paragraph No.2, would refer to the fact that the Hindus have raised some strong objections for the conduct of prayer in the new building. Earlier, in the impugned order dated 22.03.1988, the Collector passed order as under:
"2. The petitioner's claim was very carefully and impartially examined and in respect of this petitioin for the construction of Pentacostal Church in S.Nos.232/16, 17, 19 and 233/14 and 15, Vellancode village is hereby rejected, since in that area Churches are functioning under other groups and also in view of law and maintenance and order accordingly."
(emphasis supplied)
14. As such, on a mere perusal of the earlier order dated 22.03.1988 and the impugned order dated 27.02.2005, it is at once clear that earlier stand of the Collector was that among the Christian groups, there are different faiths and the other Christian groups might object to the petitioner group. Now, the stand is that Hindus have objected. As such if the District Administration goes on citing the objection one religious sect after another religious sect, the petitioner's group would certainly have its grievance to the effect that even though they happened to be the citizens of India, their right to practice and propagate their own religious faith, has been denied to them by the State itself. Hence, I am of the considered view that the reasons cited by the Collector in his impugned order dated 27.02.2005, is far from satisfactory. Simply because, Hindus of that locality are objecting, the Collector cannot shirk his responsibility from seeing that the constitutional rights of petitioner's group are exercised effectively and meaningfully and not merely on papers.
15. It is common knowledge that when there are religious rivalries in a locality, there might be some objections and undue importance cannot be given to it. Enforcement of the constitutional rights in favour of the citizen should be of paramount importance of the Collector.
16. This Court has to pose one another question before the Collector and the Government that whether the alleged Hindus are having a constitutional right or legal right to object. The answer at once is an emphatic 'No'. Once, it is so, there should not be any hesitation on the part of the administration of the Government to exercise his constitutional duties to protect the Constitutional rights. There is no question of compromise with the constitutional rights as the alleged objection by the Hindus are not only illegal, but totally against the constitutional mandates. In such a case, I am at a loss to understand as to how the Collector simply stated in paragraph No.2 of his order and rejected the prayer in favour of the petitioner.
17. The Division Bench of this Court in paragraph No.17, never stated that the petitioner is having no right to practice his own religious faith, but it only directed that the Collector shall study the position for a clear idea about what is going on there. Such direction by the Court earlier cannot be construed as though the Division Bench of this Court negatived the right of the petitioner to practice his own religious faith.
18. Hence, in this view of the matter, the order of the Collector dated 27.02.2005, is quashed and the petitioner is at liberty to have a prayer in the prayer hall and the Collector and the District Administration shall render proper police protection if required and they shall see to it that no untoward incident takes place in that locality. Accordingly, this Writ petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected W.P.M.P.No.7542 of 2005 is closed.
rsb To
1.The Collector of Kanyakumari, Collectorate at Nagercoil.
2.The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Padmanabapuram, Kanyakumari District.
4.The Executive Officer, Arumani Town Panchayat, Arumani Post, Kanyakumari District.
5.The Tahsildar, Vilavancode Taluk, Kuzhithurai Post, Kanyakumari District.