The Madras High Court has recently granted approval for the construction of a Bible Study Center by the District Secretary of the CSI Church in Erichamamoottu Villai, Kanyakumari District.
The bench, consisting of Justice RMT Teeka Raman and Justice N Senthil Kumar, observed that the rights protected under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution cannot be restricted or revoked solely on the basis of apprehensions regarding law and order. The judges further stated that there was no valid reason for the government authorities to deny permission for the construction of the Bible Study Centre.
“As enshrined by the Constitution of India under Articles 25 and 26, such a right cannot be denied or taken away on a mere objection or apprehension of law and order and there cannot be any impediment for the Government Officials, namely, the respondents 1 and 2 to deny the permission sought by the Writ Petitioner,” the court said.
The court was hearing a petition filed by Jacob Sahariah, the District Secretary of the CSI Church in Erichamamoottu Villai, Kanyakumari District. He contended that his application for constructing a Sunday Bible School, as mandated by Rule 4(3) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Building Rules, 1997, had been rejected by the District Collector.
He argued that the rejection was based on reports from the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Superintendent of Police, Kanniyakumari District, citing concerns over law and order. He further stated that these reports were not made available to him. Citing Articles 25 and 26, which protect the right to practice religious faith, he contended that the proposed Bible Study Centre, to be built on his private land, should not have been rejected.
The Additional Government Pleader, however, submitted that according to the report from the RDO, there was opposition from individuals of a different religious faith, and it was crucial to consider the ground realities to maintain law and order. He further argued that granting such permission could disturb the peace and tranquility of the area, potentially leading to unrest in the community.
In response, the appellant assured the court that he was willing to provide an undertaking that no electronic display boards or loudspeakers would be installed outside the proposed building after its construction. Accepting this submission, the court noted that, in the absence of any concrete threat to law and order, permission could not be denied solely based on objections or fears that it might lead to a law and order issue in the locality.
The court also observed that the proposed building was to be constructed on private land, and the appellant's title, right, and interest in the land had been confirmed. As the absolute owner and rightful possessor of the land, the court stated that there was no valid reason to refuse permission for the construction.
The court, therefore, allowed the petition and overturned the order of the District Collector. However, it clarified that the appellant must still comply with other applicable rules concerning technical features. Additionally, the court directed the appellant to submit a notarized undertaking regarding the non-installation of an electronic display board or loudspeakers to the District Collector.
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. T. Lajapathi Roy, Senior Counsel for Mr. C. Prithiviraj.
Counsel for the respondents: Mr. G.Suriyaananth Additional Government Pleader
Case Title: A. Jacob Sahariah v. The District Collector and Others
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy