IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 04.07.2022 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN W.P.No.26933 of 2017 and W.M.P.Nos.2343 & 2269 of 2018, 28712 of 2017 & 3311 of 2022 Pastor R.Amos Neelambur Christian Assembly, 1/495, Avinashi Road, Neelambur, Coimbatore – 641 062. ..Petitioner Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Secretary, Revenue Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

2.The District Collector, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu.

3.The Tahsildhar, Sulur, Coimbatore District, Tamil Nadu.

4.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sulur, Coimbatore. ..Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the order passed by the 3^rd respondent in Na.Ka.07/17/A4 dated

28.09.2017 and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Muthukumar for M/s.Paul and Paul For Respondents : Mrs.V.Yamuna Devi Special Govt. Pleader for R1 to R4

O R D E R

The petitioner challenges the order of the Tahsildhar, Sulur dated

28.09.2017 in and by which, he was required to get permission from the District Collector to conduct prayers in the building put up by him in Survey No.791/3E1 of Neelambur Village, Sulur Taluk, Coimbatore District.

2.The requirement of permission from the District Collector for conduct of religious worship is no longer res-integra. A Division Bench of this Court in P.Abdul Azeez Vs. The Executive Officer, Muthupettai Town Panchayat, to which I was a party, had held that requirement of permission from the District Collector under Rule 6(4) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Building Rules, 1972 is a mandatory requirement and in the absence of such permission, no building could be used for religious worship.

3.Mr.D.Muthukumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Building Rules have been replaced by the Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019 and according to him, new rule in Clause 6 of Annexure XVII, which deals with development, prohibited or restricted areas is not same as the old Rule 6(4) of the Tami Nadu District Municipalities Building Rules and therefore, his activitiy would be an exempted activity.

4.The learned counsel would draw my attention to Clause 6 of Annexure XVII, development, prohibited or restricted areas, which reads as follows:-

“(6) Construction of religious buildings:-

The competent authority shall not entertain any building application for construction of buildings in relation to any religious institution unless such application is accompanied with a No Objection Certificate obtained from the District Collector concerned.

Explanation.- For the purpose of this rule, the religious institution shall mean any temple, mutt, mosque, church or any other place of worship, which is dedicated for the benefit of or used as of right, by the public as a place of religious worship according to the learned counsel, the explanation restricts the appliacability of the main provision only to a temple, mutt, mosque, church or any other place of worship, which is dedicated for the benefit of or used as of right, by the public as a place of religious worship.

(Emphasis Supplied

5.According to the learned counsel, since the building in question is being used by the members of the Society called “The Pocket Testament League India”, it is not thrown open to the public for worship and therefore, the requirement under Rule 6 would not apply to the petitioner. I am unable to concur with the restricted interpretation of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

6.From a reading of the papers that has been enclosed in the typed set, it is seen that the petitioner is one Pastor R.Amos of Neelambur Christian Assembly. The bye-laws, which has been enclosed would show that a Society in the name of the Pocket Testament League India has been registered at Delhi in the year 1986 and the bye-laws enabled the Society to admit members. Letters hav