AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Justice T.R. Ramachandran Nair
Both these writ petitions are filed by the same petitioners seeking for various reliefs. In fact, in W.P.(C) No. 17229/2012, various prayers have been made including the one to declare that the functioning of the ''Heavenly Feast'' by the 7th respondent at Nagapadaom, Kottayam, without approval from District Collector is liable to be stopped forthwith. Therein the petitioners are relying upon Ext. P4 namely, a copy of G.O. (P) No. 217/05/Home dated 25.07.2005. The same is a revised manual published by the Government in the matter and the petitioners contend that permission from the District Collector is required even for conducing prayers in a temporary shelter and in a permanent building. In W.P. (C) No. 18605/2012, the challenge is against Ext. P1 order dated 04.08.2012 passed by the District Collector wherein sanction has been granted to conduct religious gathering W.P. (C) Nos. 17229 & 18605/2012 2 in the temporary shed, to the 7th respondent as per the description of the sanction letter of the Secretary of the Kottayam Municipality and also on the basis of the condition of mike permit for conducting the religious gathering.
This Court had passed an interim order in W.P. (C) No. 17229/2012 initially on 31.07.2012 to the effect that the 7th respondent will not conduct any religious activities for the time being in the plot in question, after holding the view that permission from the District Collector is mandatory. The said order stands modified by the interim orders dated 03.08.2012, 09.08.2012, 16.08.2012 and finally on 22.08.2012. For the purpose of considering the matter as of now, I need only refer to the operative portion of the interim order dated 22.08.2012 which is to the following effect:
Learned counsel for respondents 7 and 8 submitted that respondents 7 and 8 may be directed to conduct prayers on the coming Friday and Sunday (24.8.2012 and 26.8.2012), which is permitted. It is clarified that the permission granted by this Court for conducting prayers on Fridays and Sundays was only in the light of the fact that the District Collector has not passed fresh orders and the District Collector is free to pass any order with regard to the conduct of prayers hereafter.
Thereafter the District Collector has passed an order which has been produced as Exhibit R7(m) in W.P. (C) No. 17229/ 2012. The operative portion of the said order reads as follows:
Therefore after hearing all the parties, recording their objections, studying the documents and analysing the situation on the basis of 3 yardsticks stated above, I am unable to find out any reason to cancel the order which was issued for a short period. But to avoid confusion in the matter, it is hereby clarified that the same has validity upto 28.08.12 i.e. the period for which the Municipality has issued the permission.
The other matter ie. issues in connection with NOC for permanent construction will be decided only after receipt of the final report of District Police Chief and the hearing to be conducted after that.
In the light of the fresh order passed by the District Collector, as of now, none of the prayers sought for in the writ petitions need any consideration at this stage.
Heard both sides. The stand taken by the petitioners appears to be mainly that permission from the District Collector is required whereas the 7th respondent has been moving the District Collector for getting permission on a temporary as well as permanent basis.
Learned counsel for the 7th respondent submits that even though the 7th respondent has filed a fresh application, the same is not being entertained as evident from Ext. R7 (p) stating that the writ petition is pending and therefore, the judgment is awaited.
As of now, the matter will have to be considered by the District Collector if any application is still pending. If the application filed by the 7th respondent is pending, the same will be considered in accordance with law especially in the light of the Rules provided in Ext. P4 Government Order as well as other factors. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that actually the Municipality can grant permission only after concurrence is given by the District Collector. The learned counsel is relying upon the relevant provisions of the Building Rules.
I am not going into the merits of the matter since all these are matters for the District Collector to consider. If an application has been filed by the 7th respondent seeking further temporary permission, the District Collector will take a decision after hearing all the parties including the petitioners, 7th respondent and any other parties. It is made clear that I have not expressed anything on the merits of the matter. All the legal contentions are left open.
These writ petitions are disposed of as above.