Chengalpattu Municipality vs Mecca Jumma Mosque

This writ appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 20.10.2000, passed in W.P. No. 5830 of 2000, whereby the

learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition, (reported in 2001-2-L.W. 817). It is alleged that the 1st respondent-Mosque is situated in T.S.

No. 13, Chengalput Town, and bounded on the North by G.S.T. Road and West by Mettu Street, known as Gandhi Salai, Originally ,there was

an encroachment on Mettu Street abutting the 1st respondent-Mosque, which was removed by the authorities later on. It is further alleged that the

1st appellant -Municipality is taking steps to construct shops on the Western side of the compound wall of the Mosque, i.e. on Mettu Street alias

Gandhi Salai. Challenging the construction, the 1st respondent-Mosque has filed the writ petition. The learned single Judge, on consideration,

found that the 1st appellant-Municipality is not entitled to construct the shops on the road margin of Mettu Street alias Gandhi Salai, and allowed

the writ petition. Aggrieved against that order the Municipality has filed the present writ appeal.

The learned counsel for the appellant-Municipality submits that the 1st respondent-Mosque has already filed a civil suit, and the prayer in both

the writ petition and the civil suit is one and the same. More over, in the Civil Suit on an interlocutory application for interim order, the trial Court

has found that the plaintiff Mosque, had not denied access nor was any obstruction proved by the Mosque, so as to take away the Power of the

Municipality u/s 183 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, and the interim injunction was not granted. Thereafter, the writ petition was

filed. As such, the learned single Judge is erred in allowing the writ petition, and the order is liable to be set side.

Mr. T.R. Mani, learned Senior Counsel for the 1st respondent/Mosque submits that there are two different Mosques, situate half a kilo metre

away from one another, and the petitioner-Mosque in the writ petition has nothing to do with the plaintiff-Mosque in the Civil Suit. Therefore, the

order of the learned single Judge needs no interference.

In rejoinder, the learned counsel for. the appellant-Municipality submits that the prayers in the Civil Suit and the writ petition are in respect of the

same Mosque. He also submits that an undertaking has been furnished in the Civil Suit by the Municipality.

By the consent of both the parties, the main writ appeal itself has been taken up for final hearing. We have heard the learned counsel for the

parties and perused the materials on record. No doubt, any construction put up shall be made as per the prevailing rules. The alleged facts are all

disputed questions of fact, which cannot be gone into in writ jurisdiction. From the facts culled out, it is apparent that a suit has been filed, and the

interim injunction was rejected, now the other persons filed the writ petition, for the same relief with same prayer, which cannot be maintainable. In

the facts of the present case, the only remedy available to the 1st respondent-Mosque is to agitate before the Civil Court, by way of an

independent suit or by impleading itself in the existing suit. In any view of the matter, one cannot be permitted to circumvent the relief. The writ

petition itself is not maintainable, so also the order of the learned single Judge. The writ appeal is allowed to the extent stated above with no order

as to costs. Consequently, connected C.M.Ps. are closed. However, it is made clear that this order will not mean that the Municipality is permitted

to raise construction, against law, and in violation of rules.