The Petitioner, who is the President of Chammannoor Unit of the organization, “Kerala Naduvathul Mujahideen”, is challenging Ext.P1 and P4 orders issued by the 1st respondent, rejecting permission for construction of a Mosque in 10 cents of land owned by the said organization. When the petitioner approached the 3rd respondent Panchayat for getting Building Permit, the matter was referred to the 1st respondent for approval. Through Ext.P1 the approval was rejected stating that it was not brought out in the enquiry conducted that construction of a new mosque is necessary at the locality. On the basis of the rejection of approval, Building Permit was declined by the 3rd respondent, as per Ext.P2. The petitioner approached the 1st respondent seeking reconsideration of the matter, through Ext.P3. A mass petition was submitted by about 100 persons, who are residents of the locality. On the basis of Ext.P3, the 1st respondent reconsidered the matter and Ext.P4 decision was taken after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the revenue authorities and representative of the 3rd respondent. The approval was again declined stating that there is no change of situation after Ext.P1 order.

2. In Ext.P4 it is specifically mentioned that, the Tahsildar concerned, after making enquiry, has reported that there is no objection or any communal issues with respect to construction of the mosque proposed. It is also reported that there is an ancient mosque situated about 200 Metres away from the proposed site with a burial ground. The report also stated that, enquiry conducted has not revealed any necessity for having a new mosque. In Ext.P4 it is further stated that the District Superintendent of Police also reported that there is no objection from any nearby residents against construction of mosque in question. The 1st respondent had observed that, even though circumstance does not reveal any objection with respect to construction of the mosque or about any communal issues, since necessity for a new mosque has not been established in the enquiry conducted, the approval need not be granted.

3. The petitioner made available for perusal copies of the reports forwarded by the Tahsildar and the District Superintendent of Police. Those reports in fact recommended for construction of the mosque for ‘Mujahidheen’ faction, since the area is thickly populated with members of Muslim community and there is no objection of whatsoever nature for such construction. It is specifically pointed out that such construction can be permitted since there is no separate mosque for the ‘Mujahidheen’ faction in the locality in question.

4. Contention of the petitioner is that, rejection of approval by the 1st respondent on the basis that there is no ‘necessity’ for a mosque, is not legally sustainable. Learned counsel argued that the 1st respondent is not supposed to look into the question whether there is any necessity for construction of a religious building or a place of worship and that he is not the competent authority to decide on such issues. According to learned counsel, the approval can be denied only if there is any valid and sustainable objection from the residents of the locality or if the 1st respondent is convinced that the construction of such a building will create disturbance of communal harmony or peace and may lead to any other disturbances, riots or violence on the basis of any communal issues.

5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent it is mentioned that the site of the mosque proposed is adjacent to another mosque already in existence and the proposed mosque cannot be considered as a substitution of the old one, which is the worship place of common people irrespective of their denomination. It is further stated that, if the construction is allowed, there is a likelihood of breach of peace and harmony in and around the locality. According to the 1st respondent, Punnayoorkkulam Panchayat is consider