ORDER

The writ petition has been filed challenging an order passed by the first respondent herein under which the request of the petitioner for grant of permission to convert his house property into a Prayer Hall has been rejected.

2.According to the petitioner, he is conducting Christian prayer activities from the year 1996 onwards in his own building located in survey No.183/13A-1B, Thalakulam Village of Thingal Nagar Town Panchayat. The petitioner has further contended that since he was informed that he should get prior permission from the first respondent for conducting prayer, he gave a representation on 19.10.2009 for converting the building into a prayer hall. The general pubic of the locality of around 93 persons have given no objection for the said conversion of building into a prayer hall.

3.The petitioner had further contended that the Tahsildar had recommended for the said prayer hall by his proceedings dated 04.03.2010. The Revenue Divisional Officer has also recommended to the District Collector by his proceedings dated 07.04.2010. However, the District Collector by way of his impugned order dated 31.07.2012 has rejected the said request relying upon the report of the Superintendent of Police. The said order is under challenge in the present writ petition.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner had contended that there is no restriction with regard to the distance between two religious places as far as the District of Kanyakumari is concerned. He had further contended that the first respondent herein in his proceedings has relied upon G.O.Ms.No.916 Public (Law and Order) Department dated 29.04.1986 to reject the permission for a prayer hall. However, in the said G.O. also there is no reference about the distance to be maintained between two place of worship. He had further contended that the Revenue Authorities namely the Tahsildar and the Revenue Divisional Officer have recommended for conversion of the building into a prayer hall. The Tahsildar has specifically stated that around 400 family members are residing in the said limit and there is no religious issue among them.

5.The learned counsel for the petitioner had further pointed out that the Revenue Divisional Officer has also recommended for the same on the ground that one R.C. Church is located at a distance of 150 meters and another CSI church is located at a distance of 200 meters. A Hindu Temple is located at a distance of 250 meters. When the other religious places of worship are located in a distant place, the first respondent herein ought not to have rejected the request of the petitioner.

6.The learned counsel for the petitioner had relied upon a judgement of our High Court reported in CDJ 2007 MHC 5279 (Sadhu C.Selvaraj -Vs- The Collector of Kanyakumari, Collectorate at Nagercoil and others) to contend that just because the Hindus of the said locality are objecting, the Collector cannot shirk his responsibility from seeing that the constitutional rights of the petitioner's group. The learned counsel had further relied upon a judgement of our High Court reported in 2005 (4) CTC 171 ( Albert Raj -Vs.The District Collector, Kanyakumari District at Negercoil) to contend that the District Collector cannot reject the permission for construction of a Church building on the ground that there are only few CSI Christians church in the hamlet. The learned counsel had further relied upon a Division Bench Judgement of our High Court rendered in W.A(MD).No.1349 of 2013 ( The District Collector, Kanyakumari District, Kanyakumari and other Vs.

A.Suresh Rajan) dated 03.01.2017 to impress upon the Court that frivolous complaints to restrict the freedom to practice and profess any form of religion should not be entertained, as it would affect the constitutional rights of a person. The learned counsel has also relied upon Paragraph No.8 of the said judgement to that effect. In the said case, the prayer hall was functioning nearly 13 years without any dispute.

7.In the pres