Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. A detailed counter affidavit has been placed on record by respondents 4 and 5. It is submitted that permission to conduct religious worship by the Parishioners of Infant Jesus Church, Thalore had been granted by Exhibit P7 order and that the petitioners have no valid grievance against the said order. Therefore, there is no reason to challenge the same. It is stated that the Chappel of the CMI Monastery was being used as a Parish church. But due to the increase of Parishioners, a request was made to the 1 st respondent to permit the conversion of a daycare center in Edakunni village for the purpose of offering worship. The 1 st respondent permitted the use of such premises for religious worship. These respondents had purchased properties for constructing church building and for other purposes. It is stated that the entire extent of property purchased by the 4 th respondent is not 2.75 acres as stated in the writ petition but 3.34 acres. It is stated that there is a vacant open shed in the property and that holy mass and religious ceremonies were being conducted without causing any hardship, nuisance or inconvenience to anybody. It is stated that only an area of 2 acres is required for the functioning of the school and that the vacant shed in the residual portion of the property was being utilized for prayers. It is stated that the petitioners are not using loud speakers or causing any difficulty to the residents of the area. It is stated that the contention that there are two churches in a 300m radius is incorrect and that the contentions raised as against Exhibit P7 are completely unsustainable. It is stated that Exhibit P7 is a detailed order which considers all relevant aspects of the matter. It is stated that the only valid contention of the petitioners was with regard to noise pollution caused by the usage of the loud speakers which has already been restricted in the order. It is contended that there is ample space for parking of vehicles and that the petitioners are in no way affected by Exhibit P7 and that the worship has been going on in the property in question without any complaint or incident for the past more than five years.

7. The respondents 4 and 5 also produced Annexure 1 common judgment in W.P.(C).No.992/2013 and 15308/2013, by which Exhibit P4 order was quashed and it was declared that the church was entitled to conduct prayers in the open shed in the property owned by them in a peaceful manner without causing any disturbance to the public by using loud speakers or causing traffic blocks in the nearby roads. It was held that it shall be open to the local residents to bring it to the notice of the authorities, if the directions regarding public order and tranquility are violated. The respondents were required to make appropriate applications for construction of the church.