APHC010134792026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3331]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 7202/2026 Between:

1. VANGALAPUDI VIJAY KUMAR, S/O V. TATA RAO AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC PASTOR, R/O 1-22-007, CHANDRASHEKAR COLONY, METTACURU, YANAM, INDIA - 533 464.

...PETITIONER AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. -

522237.

2. THE GRAM PANCHAYAT OF MANJERU, MANJERU VILLAGE, KAJULURU MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT. REP BY ITS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY. - 533468.

3. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, MANJERU GRAM PANCHAYAT, KAJULURU MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. -

533468.

4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KAKINADA DISTRICT, KAKINADA. -

533001.

...RESPONDENT(S):

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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. In Paul Thankom’s case, it was observe