IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J.
Jamait E Ahle Hadees Sirivella and Others – Appellant
Versus
The State Of A.P. and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 17931 of 2023
Decided on : 06-05-2024
Religious Freedom - Mosque Construction - G.O.Ms.No.376 - The court emphasized the necessity of providing a show cause notice before rejecting applications for religious constructions, highlighting the importance of due process and the influence of local political pressures.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought permission to construct a mosque, which was rejected by the District Collector without a proper hearing, influenced by local political leaders and customs against women entering mosques.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Collector failed to provide the petitioners an opportunity to show cause against the refusal, rendering the decision illegal and necessitating a remand for proper adjudication.
Issues: Whether the rejection of the petitioners' application for mosque construction without a show cause notice violated their rights and the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.376.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Collector must provide an opportunity to applicants to respond to refusals as mandated by G.O.Ms.No.376, and cannot base decisions solely on local political influences.
Result: The court set aside the Collector's refusal and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
JUDGMENT :
Aggrieved by the rejection orders passed by District Collector Nandyal District, for construction of Ahle Hadees Masjid (Mosque) in the land admeasuring Ac.0.09 cents situated in RS.No.421/1, Telugupeta, Sirivella village, Nandyal Mandal, the present writ petition is filed.
2. Heard Sri M.R.K.Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Venkata Reddy Gajjula, learned Standing Counsel for ZPP, MPP and Gram Panchayath. Sri Venkata Narayana, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the contents of the affidavit submitted that, the petitioners society has made a representation/application dated 17.09.2022 to the collector concerned seeking permission for construction of mosque which was rejected, even without hearing petitioners, on ground that Jamiat-e-Ahle Hadith women entering and offering prayers at Masjids is against the customs of Tabliq Jamath and one Abdul Salam, local YSRCP leader is supporting public Jamiat group and influenced the Gram Panchayat and Revenue Officials through MLA not to give permission for construction of said mosque. He further contended that in W.P.(C).No.472 of 2019 the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that, “as per Islamic text entry of women into mosque for Namaz is permitted”. By virtue of G.O.Ms.No.376/1 dated 29.11.2012, the authority has to give an opportunity to the applicant to show cause against such refusal. In the present case no such show cause has been issued to the petitioner before passing the refusal order except calling them to their office. Simply calling the petitioners to their office does not mean that they have heard the petitioners before refusal. Further, the Collector cannot reject the petitioners’ application at the instance of local political leaders. In these circumstances, if such refusal order is allowed to subsist it affects the rights of the petitioners. As such, prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the interest of the petitioners.
4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader on counter submitted that, as there is a law and order problem and to ensure and maintain the public peace, the petitioner’s application has been withheld. By virtue of G.O.Ms.No.376 dated 29.11.2012 as per amendment rule 26, no site shall be used for the construction of building intended for public worship or religious purpose without the prior approval of the Collector of the District who may refuse such approval if, in his opinion the use of the site for the proposed construction of building is likely to endanger public peace and order after giving an opportunity to the applicant to show cause against such refusal.
Moreover, the respondents scrupulously followed the directions of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh passed in W.P.No.40486/2022 and after collecting reports from different authorities, the authority has righty rejected permission for construction of building.
5. Sri G.Venkat Reddy, learned Standing Counsel submitted that Gram Panchayat is not competent authority to deal with the petitioners application, as they can only recommend to the Collector for passing appropriate orders by virtue of the said GO.Ms.No.376. In fact, pursuant to the direction of this Court, the collector passed orders.
6. Perused the material available on record.
7. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have made an application for construction of a mosque vide application dated 26.03.2022 and 17.09.2022. Earlier the Gram Panchayat has passed a resolution rejecting the petitioners’ application and the same has been assailed by the petitioners before this Court by filing writ petition vide W.P.No.40486 of 2022 and this Court has disposed of the same on 17.04.2023 directing the 2nd respondent-District Collector, Nandyal to consider the application of the petitioners dated 17.09.2022 for grant of permission to construct a Masjid in RS.No.421/1, Telugupeta, Sirivella village, Nandya
The necessity of a show cause notice before rejecting applications for religious constructions is essential to uphold due process and prevent arbitrary decisions.
The rejection of a religious place application based on communal opposition violates Articles 25 and 26, emphasizing the need for secularism and religious freedom.
In case of construction of new building or reconstruction [xxx] for religious purpose or worship, prior approval or clearance or permission and concurrence as the case may be, of District Collector c....
Rule 7(8A) of the Rules, 2011, in case of construction of a new building or reconstruction for religious purposes or worship, prior approval or clearance or permission or concurrence, as the case may....
The court emphasized that the authority for permitting use of a building for religious purposes must balance freedom of religion with public order, especially given existing communal concerns.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.