Back
Dismisses Petition Against Church Reconstruction Near Temple, Upholds Collector's Order
Madurai, – The has dismissed a challenging the reconstruction of a Christian church near a Hindu temple in Sivagangai district, holding that unsubstantiated fears of law and order problems cannot override the .
A of Justice M. Dhandapani and Justice N. Dilip Kumar refused to interfere with the District Collector’s order granting permission for the reconstruction of a prayer hall at M.G.R. Nagar, Dhayapuram Village. The court observed that the local residents had no objection to the existing place of worship, which had been functioning for 25 years.
The Dispute
The petition was filed by G. Marimuthu, a District Executive Committee Member of the , a social organization. He contended that a Muthumariamman Temple existed within 45 metres of the proposed church and that permitting the construction would lead to law and order issues. He also argued that the church had not obtained prior permission from the District Collector as required under .
In an earlier round of litigation, this court had directed the District Administration to lock and seal the premises, while granting liberty to the church to apply for permission. The District Collector subsequently granted approval on , after considering the application and field reports.
Arguments Heard
The petitioner’s counsel, , submitted that the Collector’s order was passed without affording an opportunity to local residents or other affected persons. He argued that the proximity of the church to the temple would inevitably create tension.
Opposing the petition, counsel for the sixth respondent (, representing the church) submitted that an existing prayer hall had been functioning on the site for about 25 years. The reconstruction was necessitated because the old structure had become weak. He pointed out that the petitioner was not a resident of the locality, residing about 9 kilometres away.
The Special Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents informed the court that the local body, , had granted building plan approval as early as . A submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer confirmed that the distance between the church and the temple was about 45 metres, and that local residents had stated they had no objection to the prayer hall.
Court’s Reasoning
The court noted that there was no material to show that the construction or use of the prayer hall violated any . The did not disclose any existing dispute or objection from the local community.
“The apprehension expressed by the petitioner regarding a possible law and order problem, by itself, cannot be a ground to interfere with an , particularly when the competent authority has considered the relevant materials and the does not disclose any such existing dispute or objection from the local residents,” the bench observed.
The court further emphasized that the of persons professing different faiths cannot be curtailed merely on the basis of an .
Key Observations
The court made the following pivotal observations:
“The of persons professing different faiths cannot be curtailed merely on the basis of an .”
“In the absence of any material to establish that the construction or use of the prayer hall is in violation of any or that the impugned order has been passed contrary to the specific directions issued by this Court in the earlier , this Court is not inclined to interfere with the decision of the District Collector.”
The Decision
Finding no valid ground to interfere with the Collector’s order dated , the dismissed the . The court also closed the connected miscellaneous petition.
The ruling reinforces the principle that administrative decisions taken after due consideration of facts and local conditions should not be lightly disturbed, especially when they promote harmony and coexistence among different faiths.
