The right to religious freedom is subject to reasonable restrictions for maintaining public order, and state guidelines regulating places of worship have legal authority.

1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking the following reliefs:

(i) to call for the records leading to Exhibit P4 order and quash the same by issuance of a writ of certiorari.

(ii) to issue a declaration the Manual of Guidelines to Prevent and Control Communal Disturbances and to promote Communal Harmony, 2005, is formulated as G.O(P) No.217/2005 / Home dated 25/07/2005 does not have any force of law.

(iii) to issue a declaration that the 2nd respondent cannot curtail or infringe the conducting of worship peacefully by the members of the Seventh Day Adventist Church in the property owned and managed by the 1st petitioner.

(iv) to issue such other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.

2. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows; since year 1970 onwards, the believers belonging to the Christian sect of the Seventh Day Adventist Church in Ernakulam are conducting prayers and worship on all Saturdays between 9.30 am and 1 p.m. in a peaceful manner causing no disturbance of any form whatsoever. The prayers and worships are conducted in the premises of the Seventh Day Adventist Higher Secondary School, Kaloor, which is owned and managed by the 1st petitioner herein. First petitioner received an order dated 07/01/2018 passed by the 2nd respondent directing respondents 3 to 5 to take measures to stop the alleged unauthorized construction of the chapel and to ensure that, no unauthorized worship is conducted at the place. According to the petitioners, the 2nd respondent is not having any authority of law to pass Ext.P4 order or any order of such nature and insist that, the petitioners will have to seek prior approval from the District Administration for construction. The legal contention advanced by the petitioners is that, such power can only derive from the express provision of law in the form of an enactment duly promulgated. The 2nd respondent can only derive his power only from such express provision of law. The construction of any building within the municipal limits is governed by the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 and the 2nd respondent cannot usurp any powers of the municipal authority unless specifically empowered by any Statute. Therefore, due to Ext.P4 order, the valuable rights of the petitioners are transgressed as the 2nd respondent has directed respondents 3 to 5 to ensure that, there is no worship conducted by the members of the petitioners. Therefore, Ext.P4 is highly illegal and liable to be interfered with by this Court.

3. A counter affidavit is filed by the 6th respondent refuting the allegations and claims and demands raised by the petitioners. It is primarily contended that, petitioners have no locus standi to represent the church to file the writ petition. The competent person to file the writ petition on behalf of the church is Y. Selvamani, Chairman South West India Union of Seventh Day Adventist Board and as such the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. Sixth respondent is a member of the Seventh Day Adventist Church and his father was a Pastor. The respondent is not a stranger nor a wayfarer as far the affairs of the church is concerned. The issue in question is directly affecting the members of the congregation and hence having sufficient locus standi in the above matter. It is also contended that, there was no such church or prayer hall for the so called church as is c