Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P. B. Suresh Kumar, J
ABDUL RAHMAN AFIYAB – Appellant
Versus
THE SECRETARY – Respondent
WP(C)/25915/2020
Worship - Religious Building Usage - No specific act cited - Court's implications based on extant building permits and prior orders.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners complain that a building, initially permitted as a warehouse, is being used as a place of worship by another party, creating potential local conflicts.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the District Collector had previously prohibited the building's use as a place of worship and issued an interim order restraining its use as such.
Issues: Whether the building can be used as a place of worship despite prior orders prohibiting such use.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that existing orders against using the building as a place of worship took precedence over claims to the contrary.
Final Decision: The interim order was made absolute, preventing the building from being used for religious activities.
J U D G M E N T
Petitioners are persons residing at Talangara within the limits of Kasargod Municipality. It is alleged by the petitioners that a two storied building constructed by the twelfth respondent in the vicinity of the residences of the petitioners as a warehouse is being used by the eleventh respondent as a place of worship of the Mujahideen sect of the Muslim community. It is also alleged by the petitioners that though the District Collector has earlier issued Ext.P3 order directing that the building shall not be used as a place of worship, the building is still used as a place of worship by the eleventh respondent. It is further alleged by the petitioners that the building is situated is an area where persons belonging to the Sunni sect of the Muslim community are thickly populated and the use of the building by the eleventh respondent as a place of worship is likely to create law and order issues in the locality. It is further alleged by the petitioners that though complaints have been preferred by them to the District Collector in this regard, the same are not being acted upon by the District Collector. The petitioners, therefore, seek appropriate directions in this matter.
2. On 30.11.2020, this Court passed the following interim order :
“Despite service of notice, none appears for respondents 11 and 12.
In Ext.P3 proceedings dated 28.11.2017, the 7th respondent District Collector has taken note of Ext.P4 consent letter given by the 12th respondent before the Secretary of the 2nd respondent Municipality, in which it is undertaken that the building constructed in Re.Sy.No.114/12 of Thalangara Village shall be used only as godown for storing stationery items and not for any other purpose.
The learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent Municipality would point out the pendency of O.S.No.197 of 2020 before the Munsiff's Court, Kasargod and seeks time to get instructions as to the nature of reliefs sought for in that suit and whether the plaintiff has obtained any interim order.
The learned Special Government Pleader, on instructions, would submit that the 7th respondent District Collector has not granted permission to use the building constructed in Re.Sy.No.114/12 of Thalangara Village covered by Ext.P6 building permit and Ext.P7 change of occupancy, as a place of worship.
In such circumstances, there will be an interim order directing respondents 3 to 5 to restrain respondents 11 and 12 from using the building in question, constructed on the strength of Exts.P6 and P7, as a place of worship, by conducting any sort of religious activities, for a period of three weeks.
List on 08.12.2020.”
3. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 11 and 12. The stand taken by the said respondents in the counter affidavit is that the building is presently owned by the eleventh respondent and that the eleventh respondent is not using the building as a place of worship as alleged by the petitioners and that the building is being used only as a warehouse.
In the light of the counter affidavit filed by respondents
11 and 12, the writ petition is disposed of making the interim order dated 30.11.2020 absolute.
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPROT SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 6TH RESPONDENT DATED 12.05.2017.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPROT SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 7TH RESPONDENT DATED 12.06.2017.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.11.2017 IN D. DIS 28217/D1 OF THE 7TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY THE 12TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 3.8.207 BEFORE THE 7TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE EARLIER BUILDING PERMIT DATED 10.6.2016 ISSUED FROM 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NEW PERMIT DATED
5.11.2019 PURPORTEDLY CHANGING THE OCCUPANCY ISSUED FROM 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 A PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE BUILDING AND ITS SURROUNDINGS.
EXHIBIT P8 TRU
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
