Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 28631
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
BELIVERS CHURCH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C)/4199/2016
R1-R2 SRI.SYAMANTHAK B.S, G.P.R3 SRI.GOVIND PADMANAABHAN R3 SHRI.AJIT G ANJARLEKAR SRI.G.P.SHINOD SRI.RAM MOHAN.G
The court established that construction of religious buildings must consider community safety, particularly in areas with potential for communal disharmony, aligning with local administrative guidelines.
Headnote:
Religious Freedom - Church Construction - Kerala Panchayat Building Rules - Guidelines to Prevent Communal Disturbances - The court upheld the enforcement of local administrative requirements for construction of religious places, emphasizing community harmony and safety as paramount considerations.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, an Episcopal Church and its Vicar General, sought to quash orders that impeded their building permit for constructing a church, claiming the necessary approvals were unreasonably denied despite local support.
Issues: Whether the orders issued by local authorities requiring additional permissions for the church construction were justified based on reports of communal tension.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that local authorities acted within their rights under Kerala's guidelines aimed at preventing communal disturbances, which took precedence over the petitioners' assertions regarding building permits.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, affirming the orders of the lower authorities.
J U D G M E N T
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Dated this the 13th day of September, 2021 The 1st petitioner is an Episcopal Church and the
2nd petitioner is the Vicar General of the Diocese. They are before this Court seeking to quash Ext.P4 and P11 and to direct the 3rd respondent to extend the validity of Ext.P3 for a further period of three years without insisting any sanction from the 2nd respondent.
2. The congregation of the petitioners owns a Church building in Aryancode Grama Panchayat. The petitioners, in the year 2007, decided to reconstruct the Church. Ext.P3 Building Permit dated 17.10.2017 was issued by the 3rd respondent-Panchayat. When the petitioners were about to start construction, the 3rd respondent issued Ext.P4 notice stating that permission of the District Administration is necessary for the construction and if the petitioners do not obtain the same, the Building Permit will be suspended.
3. The Paster of the Church immediately submitted an application before the 2nd respondent-District Collector. A hearing was conducted on 21.11.2011. However, no order was passed by the 2nd respondent. By Ext.P8 letter dated 09.07.2012, the 2nd respondent called for a report from the Village Officer. In the meanwhile, as per Ext.P9 resolution dated 12.06.2013, the Panchayat Committee unanimously resolved to recommend issuance of NOC to the petitioners.
4. As the 2nd respondent failed to pass any orders, the petitioners filed W.P.(C) No.21658/2018. The 2nd respondent thereupon rejected the application for permission submitted by the petitioner as per Ext.P11 order dated 09.10.2014. The petitioners would contend that this Court has held inThomas Varghese v. District Collector [ 2014 (3) KLT 675 ] that proviso to Rule 7(8) of the Panchayat Building Rules is applicable only to security zone. The proposed site is not within any security zone and hence the 2nd respondent ought not have rejected the application.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners strongly contended that there is nothing objectionable in petitioners constructing a place of worship. The local authority as well as Revenue officials have reported that there is no harm in constructing a Church at the proposed site. The petitioners are only seeking renewal of the Building Permit already issued.
6. The 3rd respondent-Grama Panchayat filed a counter affidavit. The 3rd respondent stated that serious allegations were raised by the 5th respondent with respect to construction of the new Church. The Church authorities had indulged in religious conversion activities. Some of the persons connected to the Church gave provacative speeches abusing other religions. The peace in the locality is strained. The activities of the Church would give rise to social and communal disharmony and law and order problem.
7. The 3rd respondent further stated that the Building Permit was issued for the re-erection of a building. Therefore, the law requires procurement of prior approval or clearance or permission or concurrence of the District Collector concerned, in the light of the Manual of Guidelines to Prevent and Control Communal Disturbances and to Promote Communal Harmony, 2005 contained in the Government Order dated
25.07.2005.
8. The 2nd respondent also filed a counter affidavit.
The 2nd respondent stated that there is a protest against the construction of Church in the locality and there are chances of communal disturbances if sanction is given to the Church. The complaint submitted by one J. Rajesh on behalf of Hindu Aikyavedi was enquired through the Rural S.P. The report revealed apprehensions of Hindu Aikyavedi and the chance of law and order issues in the area. It was also reported that there is a “7th Day Church” just 50 metres away and a Church of Salvation Army just 500 metres far from the proposed Church.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 and
2 and the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent.
