The restoration of buildings damaged in communal incidents using public funds does not violate Art.27 of the Constitution, as long as there is no specific appropriation of tax proceeds for the promotion or maintenance of any particular religion or religious denomination.

1. We dismiss the writ petition; but we pass no orders regarding costs. And we shall give our reasons later.

We dismissed the writ petition with no order regarding costs stating that we would give our reasons for the dismissal later.

2. The petitioner is an advocate practising in Tellicherry; and he, as a taxpayer, has filed this writ petition for the issuance of a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the State of Kerala and the District Collector, Cannanore to forbear from spending any amount from the public funds of Kerala State to reconstruct the places of worship destroyed during the recent disturbances at Tellicherry and the villages nearby. On the night of 29th-30th December 1971 (the counter affidavit says it was on the night of 28th-29th), there were some unfortunate incidents at Tellicherry and the surrounding villages between two sections of the people, Hindus and Muslims; and as a result, some shops, buildings and places of worship of both the sections were destroyed. The Government started relief measures; and a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was sanctioned from the Distress Relief Fund for distribution of ad hoc grants to those who were rendered homeless and to those whose houses were damaged. Arrangements for the free supply of one week's ration to the affected families were also made. The Government constituted a Peace Committee; and the Committee was requested to make a report regarding the damage caused by the incidents to religious and educational institutions, private bouses including homes of some serving defence personnel, fishing vessels, etc. The Committee consisted of 16 members, Members of the Legislative Assembly, Chairman of the Municipal Council, representatives of political parties, other prominent persons, etc. Ultimately, the Government passed an order on 13th January 1972 (Ext. RI), wherein was stated in Para.2:

"Government order that the cost of repairs or reconstruction for the restoration to the condition existing prior to the incidents of religious and educational institutions and the houses of serving defence personnel damaged will be met by the Government."

It was stated further in the order that, to meet the costs of restoration of buildings and for other relief measures, the Government sanctioned as additional contribution of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the Distress Relief Fund; and a direction was also given that the Finance Secretary and Treasurer of the Distress Relief Fund would place the amount at the disposal of the District Collector, Cannanore' The District Collector was authorised to sanction expenditure not exceeding Rs. 5000/- in each individual case of repair or reconstruction for restoration of religious and educational institutions and houses of serving defences personnel. All this, as already indicated, was in addition to the Rs. 25,000/- sanctioned by the Government from the Distress Relief Fund to meet the expenditure for immediate relief to the victims. And it is this order that is under attack. The contention is that, under Art.27 of the Constitution, the petitioner should not "be compelled to pay any taxes, the proceeds of which are specifically appropriated in payment of expenses for the promotion or maintenance of a particular religion of religious denomination."

3. The State has filed a counter affidavit, wherein is averred that the damage or the destruction caused was not confined to the houses and places of worship belonging to members of any particular religion or religious denomination, but was more general and widespread; and that the moneys allotted for relief work were from the Distress Relief Fund. The constitution of the Peace Committee is admitted; but it is averred that the Committee was directed that, in assessing the damage, the cost of restoration to the condition existing prior to the incidents was to be the guiding factor. The averment of the petitioner that the amount sanctioned under Ex. RI was to reconstruct the places of w