AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Honourable Mr. Justice K. Chandru
This writ petition is filed by petitioner seeking to challenge the order of the third respondent - the Tahsildar, Kalkulam Taluk, dated 21.04.2012
and after setting aside the same, seeks for consequential direction to the respondents 1 to 4 to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner
and her family members. By the impugned order, the petitioner was informed that the petitioner''s house was hired by one Raj, son of Abraham
and the spiritual meeting was conducted by Pentecost Mission Service. The petitioner was informed that in the light of Rule 4(3) of the Tamil Nadu
Panchayats Building Rules, 1997, since the approval of the District Collector has not been obtained, the question of the petitioner using the place
for conducting religious worships will not be allowed.
It was stated that the petitioner has not obtained any approval from the District Collector and the nearby persons who are residing there,
belonged to other religions, have made objections and in the light of the law and order problem and in order to keep communal harmony, the
petitioner was prevented from conducting any Pentecost Evangelical meetings in the said premises. The copy of the order was addressed to the
petitioner as well as to Raj, son of Abraham. The said order came to be challenged on the ground that no opportunity was given to the petitioner
before passing the impugned order and the revenue authorities have no locus standi to pass orders even assuming that there was any violation of
the Municipal Rules and Panchayat Rules and it is only the Executive authority of the Panchayat who alone, can pass orders and the order is also
contrary to ultra vires of the Constitution of India. The persons who made allegations were residing far away from the house of the petitioner. No
service was performed in the area and the petitioner was praying without causing any hindrance to anybody and there was no noise pollution and
no illegal activities were carried out by the petitioner.
Since the respondents have referred to Tamil Nadu Panchayats Building Rules, 1997, framed u/s 242 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994,
it is necessary to refer to the relevant Rules as under:
Rule 4(3): No site shall be used for the construction of a building intended for public worship or religious purposes without the prior approval of
the Collector of the district who may refuse such approval, if in his opinion, the use of the site and building is likely to endanger public peace and
order.
Insofar as the petitioner admitted that the place has been used for religious worships, the said Rule is squarely attracted as the place of worship
is situated in the Village Panchaytat namely West Parasery, Eraniel Village.
The contention that the revenue authorities have no say in the matter, cannot be accepted as in the present writ petition, the petitioner not only
seeks to set aside the order of the Tahsildar - the third respondent, but also seeks for police protection presumably on the ground that there has
been disturbance to the petitioner on carrying on the said religious worship. In fact, the Tahsildar is also the notified Executive Magistrate and
therefore, in terms of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he is entitled to exercise the said power if there is going to disharmony or
law and order problem.
The Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the unreported judgment of this Court in Albert Raj v. The District Collector and
others in W.P.Nos.16804 of 2003 and 21187 of 2005 decided on 03.08.2005. In that case, the question arose was whether the District
Collector is refusing to give permission on the ground that there is already another church in existence and therefore, there is no further requirement
of any place of worship, came to be considered. In that context, this Court after referring to the earlier decision of the Division Bench of this Court,
held that the order of the District Collector was not valid and there is a fundamental right guaranteed to the citizens under our Constitution, viz.,
freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion.
In the present case, the petitioner has not made any request for treating the house of the petitioner as the place of worship and to conduct further
prayer meetings in the said premises. On the other hand, the petitioner has not obtained any such permission from the revenue authority namely, the
District Collector. this Court never held that Rule 4(3) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Building Rules, 1997, is either ultra vires of the Tamil Nadu
Panchayats Act, 1997 or unconstitutional in terms of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India.
The Learned Counsel for the petitioner further referred to the recent unreported decision of this Court in Paul Thankom v. The State of Tamil
Nadu and others in W.P(MD)No.10782 of 2006 decided on 14.08.2012. In that case, the question arose was whether the person belonging to
Pentecost Christianity assembling in a house and conducting the prayers can be interfered with. The prayer of the petitioner in that case was that
the respondents should not initiate action from conducting the prayer meetings in her house without issuing proper notice and opportunity of
hearing.
However, a perusal of the order shows that this Court at length dealt with the religious rights of the Indian citizens and that no person has a right
to affect the religious practice of a person. In paragraph 8, it must be seen that this Court held as follows:
... No body has a right to affect the religious practice of a person. Reasonable restrictions, can be imposed only in cases, falling under ""public
order or morality and health and rights guaranteed under part III of the Constitution of India. So long as the petitioner or the members of her family
and others do not indulge in any activity forbidden under law, or their actions are contrary to public order, morality and health (2) Other provisions
of part III of the Constitution; (3) any law (a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial or political or secular activity, there cannot be
interference with a right to practice and profess any religion. Conducting prayers collectively by the members belonging to a particular sect or a
religion cannot be restricted as it would amounting to interfering with their constitutional right to practice and propagate religion of their choice. this
Court is not inclined to grant any blanket direction in the nature of mandamus as prayed for, and holds that it is always open to the official
respondents to take appropriate action against the petitioner and others, if there are strong and credible materials available against them, to arrive
at a conclusion that they have indulged in any activity forbidden by law, as explained in the judgments stated supra.
Therefore, there was no occasion for this Court to consider whether there was any valid permission from the District Collector in terms of
Section 4(3) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Buildings Rules, 1997, to treat a place as the place of worship and hence, the decision in Paul
Thankom''s case (cited supra) has no assistance to the case of the petitioner.
On the other hand, as already noted, the vires of Rule 4(3) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Buildings Rules, 1997, was not under challenge and
the said Rule has been incorporated without regard to any religion or any particular faith and as part of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Buildings Rules,
1997, framed under the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1997. Therefore, there was no illegality in the Tahsildar pointing out that insofar as the
petitioner has not obtained permission from the District Collector, the question of using the place of residence as the place of worship, does not
arise. It is not as if the petitioner is conducting the prayer in her own house and that has been sought to be interfered with and what is sought to be
prevented, is a congregational prayer in a particular place without permission of the District Collector as it is infringement to the Tamil Nadu
Panchayats Buildings Rules, 1997, is the only question that arises for consideration.
The petitioner''s admission itself shows that it is not individual worship of a particular citizen in her own house. On the other hand, the petitioner
had hired the house and wanted to convert her house as a Pentecost Mission and therefore, without objections from the locals whether on the
basis of merit or otherwise, the Tahsildar is bound to interfere with and inform the petitioner about the legal obligation of getting permission from
the necessary authorities. this Court considered the impugned order does not suffer from any infringement of any provisions of the Constitution of
India or any other law in force. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are dismissed. No
costs.