Point of Law: 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 concerned shall be obtained and conditions stipulated in Manual of Guidelines to Prevent and Control Communal Disturbances and to Promote Communal Harmony which is in force have to be complied with.

JUDGMENT :

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

1. This writ petition is filed by the President of Salafi Masjid a Mosque situated at Alamthuruth, Vadakkekara , Paravur Taluk, Ernakulam District, seeking to quash Exhibit P6 order passed by the District Collector, Ernakulam dated 2.6.2016 prohibiting use of building bearing door No. XI/194/B for religious purposes, and consequential direction issued to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi-the 3rd respondent and the District Police Chief, Ernakulam Rural, to ensure that the building is not used for any religious purposes.

2. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows.

3. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has constructed the building in question after securing Exhibit P3 building permit for construction of a prayer hall from the Secretary of Chittattukara Grama Panchayat the 4th respondent. After completion of the construction, prayer was being conducted allowing ladies to attend the prayer. Some objections happened to be raised from the community regarding Friday prayer permitting ladies to participate and there upon complaints were filed before the Revenue Divisional Officer and ultimately it reached before the District Collector, Ernakulam on the basis of a petition filed by the petitioner herein. Later, petitioner approached this Court and secured Exhibit P2 judgment in W.P. (C) No. 1526/2016 dated 15th January, 2016, whereby the District Collector the 2nd respondent was directed to consider the petition in accordance with law.

4. The case projected by the petitioner is that the District Collector had handed over the petition to the Additional District Magistrate, and he had passed Exhibit P6 order dated 2.6.2016 without considering the relevant documents and papers produced by the petitioner. It is pointed out that being aggrieved by Exhibit P6 order, even though petitioner had filed Exhibit P1 review petition stating that there are errors apparent on the face of the record, the District Collector has not passed orders in the review petition. It is thus seeking appropriate directions, this writ petition was filed. The sum and substance of the material contention is that, when the permit was granted in the year 2009 there was no provision under the Kerala Municipality Building Rules1999, which was made applicable to the panchayat area, for securing any prior permission from the District Collector and therefore the impugned order passed by the District Collector on that basis is arbitrary and illegal liable to be interfered with by this court.

5. The District Collector has filed a detailed counter affidavit refuting the allegations and claims and demands raised by the petitioner. According to the District Collector, in Exhibit P2 judgment itself, it is clear that the District Collector is directed to dispose of Exhibit P2 mass petition dated 21.2.2011 and accordingly, the District Collector heard the petitioner and all concerned parties. It is also pointed out that Exhibit P6 order was passed taking into account the Police report and only on attaining subjective satisfaction, the prayer conducted in the building in question was prohibited. That apart it is submitted that in view of the directions contained in Exhibit P2 judgment, the review petition preferred by the petitioner cannot be considered. It is submitted that a prior permission is required to use a building for religious purposes as prescribed in “the Manual of Guidelines to Prevent and Control Disturbances and to Promote Communal Harmony, 2005” hereinafter called, “Guidelines-2005.” Therefore, according to the District Collector, the building is used for religious purposes without securing prior permission of the District Collector. That apart it is submitted that the functioning of the prayer hall is in not accordance with the guidelines prescribed in the Guidelines-2005. Other contentions are also raised.

6. It is also submitted that even though Rule 7 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rule