Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of Respondents Nos.2 and 3 herein in issuing notice vide Rc.No.02/Church/2026-27 dated 09.03.2026 directing the Petitioner herein to herein to stop conducting prayers without obtaining permission from the Respondent No.2- Gram Panchayat as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India and without jurisdiction and Consequently set aside the notice issued vide Rc.No.02/Churc h/2026- 27 dated 09.03.2026 by Respondent Nos.2 and 3 and further direct the Respondents not to interfere with religious activities in the subject church and pass such

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to suspend the operation of Rc.No.02/Church/2026-27 dated 09.03.2026 by Respondent Nos.2 and 3 and pass such

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. AJAY KUMAR KANAPARTHI

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV

2. GP FOR REVENUE

The Court made the following:

::ORDER ::

Impugning the notice issued vide Rc.No.02/Church/2026-27, dated 09.03.2026 (Ex.P1), the above writ petition was filed.

Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Kanaparthi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, appeared for respondent No.1, Sri Y. Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel, appeared for respondents 2 & 3 and Ms. Usha, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, appeared for respondent No.4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, in pursuance of the Gift Deed dated 01.09.1983 (Ex.P5), a church was constructed at Manjeru, Kajuluru, Kakinada. Respondent No.2 assigned D.No.5-149 to the church. The Panchayat Secretary of respondent No.2 issued a show-cause notice (Ex.P2), for which the petitioner submitted an explanation vide Ex.P3. Without considering the explanation and providing an opportunity of hearing, the Panchayat Secretary of respondent No.2 issued the Ex.P1-notice impugned in the writ petition. Learned counsel would also submit that the Secretary has no jurisdiction to issue Ex.P1 notice impugned in the writ petition. No provision of law was mentioned in Ex.P1. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of Paul Thankom v. the State of Tamil Nadu in WP.(MD).No.10782 of 2006, dated 14.08.2012.

Sri Chaitanya, learned counsel appearing for Gram Panchayat, would fairly submit that the notice impugned in the writ petition does not contain the provision of law. He would also submit that the Panchayat Secretary of respondent No.2 failed to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and consider the relevant aspects. He would also submit that Ex.P1 does not stand the legal scrutiny.

In Paul Thankom’s case, it was observed as follows:

“7.Material on record shows that the residential place of the petitioner is being used for conducting prayers. It is also admitted by the petitioner that while practising Christianity, “Pentecost”, the petitioner and her family members and others in and around her house, assemble in her house, for conducting prayers. The objection of the respondents is that if such dwelling house has to be transformed into a place of worship for the people of the locality to assemble, then there must be a prior permission.

8. In the opinion of this Court, there is no need to get prior permission form any authority for assembling and conducting prayers in a dwelling place. However, if there is any nuisance caused due to noise pollution or for any other bona fide reasons, it is always open to the authorities to take necessary action under the provisions of the relevant statutes. But before resorting