The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of maintaining public order and the limited scope of interference by the judiciary in matters of law and order.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order dated 28.12.2015 in Mu.Mu.C2/7861/13 passed by the first respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequentially direct the first respondent to grant approval for the construction of the Church.)

The present writ petition has been filed challenging an order passed by the first respondent herein under which the request of the petitioner seeking permission for construction of the Church has been rejected.

2. According to the writ petitioner, he is the Chairman of Kalakadu Pastorate which is under the control and administration of Tirunelveli Diocese were conducting Christian prayer meetings at Naduchalai Pudur Village. The said prayers were conducted in the residential house of one Chellaiyah from the year 1977 onwards. The prayer meeting were conducted on every Sunday and on the festival days without using any loud speaker.

3. The petitioner has further submitted that since the number of members got increased, Tirunelveli Diocese had purchased 21 cents of land in an approved site by way of registered document dated 19.07.2007. After obtaining building plan approval from the concerned Panchayat on 25.03.2010, they have started putting up construction of the Church. When the construction was half-way through, the respondents 2 to 4 had visited the site and objected to the construction, on the ground, that without obtaining prior approval from the first respondent, construction activities cannot be proceeded with.

4. The petitioner had given a representation on 28.10.2010 to the first respondent herein seeking permission to utilise the said site for the purpose of constructing a Church. Thereafter, the first respondent had called for a report from the fourth respondent herein. The fourth respondent by his report dated 21.01.2011 had recommended for granting permission for the construction of the Church. On 30.12.2011, the third respondent herein has also recommended for granting permission for the Church on the ground that there is no objection from any one nearby. However, the first respondent by his order dated 24.06.2012 had rejected the request for permission on the ground that there is a likelihood of law and order problem, if the construction of a Church is permitted. The petitioner had further contended that he had given a detailed representation again to the first respondent on 19.02.2013. Based upon the said representation, a reminder was also sent by the petitioner on 13.04.2015. Thereafter, the first respondent had again called for a report from the respondents 2 to 4. The second respondent by his report dated 29.03.2014 and 21.10.2014 had objected to the construction of a Church on the ground that several complaints have been received from the locality objecting to the construction of the Church and the same create a law and order problem. The Sub Collector, Cheranmahadevi has also submitted a report that permission may not be granted. Based upon the said report and after a personal hearing on 06.11.2015, the first respondent has passed the impugned order on 28.12.2015 rejecting the request of the petitioner. The said order is under challenge in the present writ petition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner had contended that just because certain individuals have raised objection for construction of the Church, the same cannot be denied by the first respondent. He had further pointed out that the site and building plan has already been approved by the concerned Panchayat for construction of a Church. The prayers are being conducting in the said Village from the year 1977 onwards. There is no disharmony or any law and order problem due to the said prayer meeting which were conducted in a private house. The learned counsel had further contended that in his order dated 30.12.2011, the first respondent has pointed out that two individ