Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 77217
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mr.JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH, J
Pastor L.Joseph Wilson Arise and Shine Church (Word of God Ministries Trust) – Appellant
Versus
The District Collector Thiruvarur District – Respondent
W.P.No.2036 of 2024 | W.M.P.No.2172 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.K.Samidurai
For the Respondents:Mr.T.M.Rajangam Government Advocate
Religious practices must comply with regulations and permissions; rights under Articles 25 and 26 are not absolute and should coexist with others' rights.
Headnote:(A) Constitutional Law - Article 25 and 26 - Challenges to the closure of a prayer hall without permission - Court held that conducting prayer meetings in a property used for public worship requires obtaining the relevant permissions - The petitioner cannot operate a prayer hall as a matter of right without compliance - Petitioner's application for build permission was denied due to non-compliance with rules. (Paras 5, 6, 16)
(B) Freedom of religion - Rights under Articles 25 and 26 are subject to public order and the rights of others - The court emphasized that the exercise of religious rights must not infringe on the enjoyment of rights by neighbors. (Paras 12, 16)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner established a Trust for conducting prayer meetings, but faced closure due to complaints of causing disturbance and lack of necessary permissions for public worship.
Findings of Court:
The court directed the removal of seals on the property, clarifying that the property cannot be used for prayer meetings without proper permission.
Issues: The legitimacy of conducting prayer meetings without authorization and the balance of rights between religious freedom and public order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that religious practices must conform to established regulations and that rights must coexist harmoniously without infringing on others.
Result: Writ petition disposed of, with conditions on usage of property.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. fact of prayer meetings without permission. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. argument regarding requirement of permissions. (Para 4) |
| 3. rights of worship versus public order. (Para 5) |
| 4. need for authority permission for prayer halls. (Para 6 , 9) |
| 5. undertaking does not suffice for permissions. (Para 7 , 8) |
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 20.01.2024.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was running a Trust in the name of "Word of God Ministries Trust". The Trust was established in the year 2007 and patta was also transferred in the name of the Trust in the year 2023. Regular prayer meetings were held in this property with family relatives and neighbours. The petitioner purchased this property on 02.01.2023 in document No.2/2023 and conducting prayer meetings continuously thereafter.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that a complaint was given against the prayer meetings being conducted in the property and based on the same, an enquiry was conducted by the Inspector of Police, Kodavasal Police Station. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application seeking for building permission and plan approval for construction of Church. The same was rejected by the 1st respondent. In the meantime, the 2nd respondent issued a notice to the petitioner directing the petitioner to close down the prayer house within a period of 10 days, failing which, action will be initiated against the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.
4. The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit. The 1st respondent has taken a stand that the petitioner cannot run a prayer hall without getting proper permission. That apart, the prayer meetings conducted by the petitioner is causing disturbance to the adjacent neighbours and in the locality. The 1st respondent has relied upon the earlier orders passed by this Court, wherein, this Court held that such prayer meetings in a prayer hall cannot be conducted, without obtaining proper permission under the relevant rules. Accordingly, the 1st respondent has sought for dismissal of this writ petition.
5. The issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by earlier orders passed by this Court. One such order was passed by me in W.P.(MD) No.5226 of 2016 dated 29.04.2021. The relevant portions are extracted hereunder :
“10. On going through the materials that were placed before this Court, this Court finds the petitioner, in the guise of conducting prayer meetings, is actually having a full-fledged prayer hall intended for religious purposes where huge congregations take place. The photographs that have been filed as an additional typed set of papers, and which were produced by the petitioner before the District Collector, at the time of the enquiry, substantiate the fact that the premises is actually used as a place of public worship without obtaining the necessary permission under the relevant rules. The fulcrum of any religious faith is “the truth”, and no religion tolerates any act which takes a person away from the truth. In the present case, the petitioner who claims himself to be a devout Christian has travelled far away from the truth. The petitioner has attempted to portray as if the premises is being used only for group prayers while the same is being used for huge public gatherings for public worship. It is very clear from the materials placed before this Court.
11. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that the procedures and permissions to be complied with and sought, respectively, in order to construct a building intended for public worship or religious purposes as prescribed under Rule 4(3) of The Tamil Nadu Panchayats Building Rules, 1997 and requirements under Rule 47-A for the development of land in an area other than a planning area as contemplated under The Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 have not been complied with by the petitione
