IMPORTANT POINT
The rejection of a religious place application based on communal opposition violates Articles 25 and 26, emphasizing the need for secularism and religious freedom.

JUDGMENT

Mohammed Nias C.P., J.

The petitioner owns an extent of 7.20 cents of land in Sy. No.147/2 of Kadalundi Village, which had a building which has been used as a prayer hall since 2004. It is submitted that no Juma prayer was conducted, no amplifiers or speakers were used, and the prayer hall was only for offering prayers by the religious people. The petitioner had applied for a building permit for changing the roof of the building and for approval of the plan before the 3rd respondent Secretary of the Kadalundi Grama Panchayat. The petitioner was ultimately given a permit on 25.11.2014, Ext.P4, which permitted him to change the roof of the existing building having a plinth area of 53.36 sq.mtrs., pursuant to which the petitioner changed the roof. The petitioner submits that he was issued with a notice dated 11.05.2015 from the 3rd respondent Secretary of the Panchayat alleging that complaints were received from neighbours regarding illegal construction and directed the petitioner to stop the construction. The petitioner submitted a reply on 16.05.2015 denying any illegal construction as alleged in Ext.P5.

2. Apprehending demolition of the roof of the building the petitioner filed W.P(C) No. 15810/2015 challenging Ext.P5, in which this Court granted an interim stay on 28.05.2005 and which was extended until further orders on 15.06.2015. Thereafter, the Revenue Divisional Officer issued a notice dated 18.12.2015 for a hearing to be held on 29.12.2015 to resolve a complaint from the 4th respondent and local residents. The RDO, by proceedings dated 29.01.2016, directed to stop the functioning of the prayer hall as it will cause communal disharmony, which was challenged by the petitioner before this Court by filing W.P(C) No. 7505/2016. On 26.02.2016, this Court passed an interim order permitting the petitioner to use the building as a prayer hall, but on condition that the petitioner shall not use any loudspeaker or conduct any Juma prayer and shall not use it as a permanent place of worship. Ultimately, the writ petition was disposed of by judgment dated 07.06.2018 directing the 2nd respondent District Collector to decide adverting to the reports from the police and revenue authorities, and till such time the interim order passed was directed to be maintained. The 2nd respondent, by proceedings dated 15.06.2020, addressed the 3rd respondent that there were objections from the members of the other communities in conducting the prayer hall and therefore, refused to issue the NOC through Ext.P8 order. The 3rd respondent Panchayat also issued a letter on 17.06.2020 directing the petitioner to stop the prayer hall in view of Ext.P8. Exts.P8 and P9 are challenged in this writ petition.

3. Heard Sri. S. Sreekumar, the learned Senior Counsel instructed by Sri. P. Martin Jose for the petitioner, Sri. T. Naveen, the learned Standing Counsel for the Pollution Control Board, Sri. T. Sethumadhavan, the learned Senior counsel for the additional 6th respondent, Sri. Vinod Singh Cheriyan, the learned Standing Counsel for the Panchayat and Smt. Devi Shri R., the learned Government Pleader for the official respondents.

4. The Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that Exts.P8 and P9 are illegal and in excess of the authority conferred on the 2nd respondent. It is submitted that the principles of law stated by this Court have not been followed at all. The petitioner also relies on Article 26 and the Provisions of the Manual which governs grant of permission has to be understood in the context of Articles 25 and 26. It is also submitted that there are no interfaith disputes in the locality between two different religious community members and there was not even a single instance where the local administration or the police had interfered in the matter of public order due to the establishment of a place of religious worship since 2004. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner also relies on the following judgments to support his co