(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of letters Patent against the order in W.P.(MD)No.31011 of 2023 dated 16.12.2024.

Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of letters Patent against the order in W.P.(MD)No.20951 of 2024 dated 16.12.2024.)

Common Judgment:

M. Jothiraman, J.

1. Under assail is the common order passed in WP.(MD)Nos.31011 of 2023 & 20951 of 2024 dated 16.12.2024.

2. Originally, one Swami Nadar has filed a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus forbearing the official respondents 1 to 4 from permitted the fifth respondent/Vinil Sathish from conducting prayer meeting in Survey No.301/22 (D.No.10/31B), Mathavilai, Mandakadu Town Panchayat, Kalkulam Taluk, Kanyakumari District except due process of law.

3. It is the case of the writ petitioner/Swami Nadar that one Vinil Sathish without applying permission by converting the residential building into a worship place for S.No.310/22, D.No.10/31B. The said Vinil Sathish approached the District Administration/ District Collector for seeking permission to convert the residential building into worship place and the same was rejected by the District Collector, on 31.12.2009. Challenging the same, the said Vinil Sathish preferred an appeal before the Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department and the same was dismissed. Hence, he filed the writ petition in WP.(MD)No.29074 of 2011 and the same was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 29.10.2021. One Arul Selvan filed the writ petition in WP.(MD)No.18124 of 2022 to issue writ of mandamus restraining the official respondents from granting permission to conduct prayers in R.S.No.321/22. The Full Gospel Pentecoastals Church also filed in WP.(MD)No.22455 of 2022 challenging the order passed by the Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil and to direct the District Collector, Kanyakumari District to grant permission for conducting 30th yearly convention meeting. This Court by its common order dated 27.09.2022 directed the District Administration authorities to pass appropriate orders to consider importance of public peace and also to consider the prayer to practice religious. In pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the District Collector, rejected the request of Full Gospel Pentecostals Church for demolition of old building and reconstruction of Church in S.No. 301/22B and also rejected the prayer of 5 days yearly convention meeting. Against the order passed by the District Collector no writ petition is filed and also no appeal is filed before the Government. Thereafter also the appellant herein is conducting religious worship in S.No.310/22. The District Collector by his order dated 29.12.2022 rejected the request of demolition of old building and reconstruction of church in S.No.301/22B.

4. One Pastor J.Titus, Full Gospel Pentecostals Church, Mathavilai has filed a writ petition in WP.(MD)No.20951 of 2024 challenging the rejection order passed by the District Collector dated 29.12.2022 and to direct the District Collector to permit the writ petitioner to demolish the existing church and to reconstruct the church building in resurvey No. 301/33.

5. It is the case of the writ petitioner in WP.(MD)No.20951 of 2024 that the petitioner church namely, Full Gospel Pentecostals Church was established in the year 1990 and has been rendering religious service. While so, in the year 2001, one Arul Dhas gifted his land in Re.S.No. 301/22 measuring 6 ½ cents with building to the church and the same was registered as Doc.No.125/2001 dated 15.02.2001. In the year 2003, the church purchased the adjacent land to an extent of 6 ½ cents in Re.S.No.301/22 from one Mr.John in Doc.No.1543/2003 dated 01.12.2003. A group of people from Mathavilai village had objected to the prayer meetings conducted in the church. The Revenue Divisional Officer vide proceedings dated 24.11.2005 infromed that the authorities had already directed the Pastor not to conduct prayer meetings. Aggrieved over the same, the church filed a writ petition in WP.No. 39683 of 2005 and this Court allowed the writ petition by order dated 09.05.2005 an also held that prior permission is not necessary for conducting prayers. In pursuance thereto, all these years prayers have been conducted in church. The Panchayat also continued to levy property tax in the name of erstwhile owner. Hence, the church requested to mutate the revenue records in the name of the church. The Panchayat also assessed the property tax for the period from May 2006 to July 2008 for the building in D.No.10/31B in the name of the church. The mutation of revenue records pertaining to the land and building ended in vain and the President of the church filed a writ petition in WP.No.18162 of 2009 and this Court allowed the same by an order dated 01.10.2009 directing the church to approach the Tahsildhar and District Collector with relevant documents. The District Collector, vide proceedings dated 31.12.2009 negated the request for mutation of name in the revenue records stating that the church authorities have converted the residential building into church without getting prior permission from the concerned authorities. Challenging the same, an appeal was preferred before the Government and the same was not considered and therefore, the writ petitioner constrained to file a writ petition in WP.No.3165 of 2011. This Court by an order dated 02.03.2011 directed the authorities to consider the same. In pursuant thereto, the Government by way of a letter dated 23.09.2011 refused to consider the representation for change the name in the revenue records. Challenging the same, the President of the church filed a writ petition in WP.No.29074 of 2011 and the said writ petition came to be dismissed. In such circumstances, the writ petitioner submitted a representation to the Deputy Superintendent Police, seeking permission to conduct annual convention and the Deputy Superintendent Police gave permission with certain conditions. Aggrieved over the same, one T.Arjunan filed a writ petition in WP.(MD)No.20927 of 2019 and this Court directed the officials to conduct surprise inspection and to ascertain the compliance of the conditions imposed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police dated 14.09.2019. Without knowledge of the writ petitioner and without any notice, the District Collector took up the complaint filed by one Arul Selvan and the representations filed by the writ petitioner seeking permission to conduct convention and to reconstruct the church jointly and vide impugned proceedings dated 29.12.2022 refused the permission for the same anticipating law and order issues due to religious sensitivity.

6. The aforesaid two writ petitions were taken up together and the learned Writ Court by a common order dated 16.12.2024 allowed the writ petition in WP.(MD)No.31011 of 2023 and dismissed the writ petition in WP.(MD)No.20951 of 2024. Aggrieved over the same, the fifth respondent therein in WP.(MD)No.31011 of 2023 has preferred the writ appeal in WA.(MD)No.1127 of 2025 and the writ petitioner in WP. (MD)No.20951 of 2024 has preferred the writ appeal in WA.(MD)No. 1139 of 2025.

7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants in both writ appeals would submit that the learned Writ Court failed to consider while placing on the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 24.11.2005 to arrive at the conclusion as to the existence of law and order issue, failed to consider the fact that WP.No.39683 of 2005 challenging the above said proceedings was allowed by this Court by an order dated 09.12.2005 and as against the same no appeal was filed and hence, the order holds the field till date. The learned Writ Court failed to consider that the Rule 6(4) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Building Rules only deals with the usage of a new site for the construction of building for the purpose of religious activities, whereas, the church was gifted with the already constructed building to carry out religious activities and not the site for taking permission under Rule 6(4). When the rights of the appellant to carry out the religious activities in the light of the rights conferred under Constitution of India has already been held by this Court in WP.No.39683 of 2005, question of denying permission for reconstruction of the very same church does not arise. The District Collector ought not to have refused permission anticipating law and order problem without providing an opportunity of hearing to the appellants. In fact, the existence of the church in the said locality since 1990 and regular prayers as well as period conduct of convention is not in dispute.

8. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that even assuming law and order issue, it is the bounden duty of the State to protect the constitutional rights or the citizents. As such the act of the District Collector negating the appellant's request amount to violating the constitutional rights of the appellant. The learned Writ Court ought to have considered that taking part in religious activities is fundamental rights and hence, the question of delay and laches in challenging any order infringing upon such right would not arise in as much as it is well settled principle of law that any Act, Rules, Regulation, Executive Instructions or orders passed contrary to the fundamental rights is void. To strengthen his contention, he has relied upon the following judgments:-

                   i)Mohamed Gani Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District and others in WP.No.5202 of 1998 dated 14.07.2005 wherein it has been observed as under:-

                   34.No doubt, the right to practise one's religion under Article 25(1) is subject to public order, but the respondents have not indicated anywhere in the counter affidavit that the public order will be disturbed if Muslims take their bodies through the public streets for burial in their graveyard. Moreover, even assuming that Harijans are objecting to taking out of their bodies by the Muslims through Kottaikaliamman Street or any other public street, the question arises what is the reason or basis for their objection? After all, merely on someone's objection a religious community cannot be prohibited from performing its rites and ceremonies. If it is said that merely on the objections of members of some other community the members of a community can be prohibited from performing their religious rites and ceremonies, on the ground that otherwise there would be breach of public order, then logically one will have to go to the extent of holding that merely if a non-Hindu objects to a Hindu going to temples, or a nonMuslim objects to a Muslim saying his Namaz, the authorities can prohibit Hindus from going to Temples or Muslims saying their Namaz on the ground that there may be breach of public order if that is permitted. In our opinion, no such view can be countenanced or accepted, otherwise the right under Article 25 of our Constitution to practice one's religion can be made wholly illusory and redundant on the mere objection of members of another religious community that performance of such religious rites and ceremonies offends their feeling, and there may be a breach of public order. There must be tolerance among the various religious communities in a secular State.

                   ii)Another judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in WA.(MD)No.1341 of 2022 in a case of State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary and others Vs. A.Rose Pauline and others dated 25.11.2025 to show that it is not permissible for the parties to reopen the concluded judgments of the Court.

9. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State would submit that the residential building in D.No.10/31B has been converted into a church without obtaining due prior approval of the concerned authorities as contemplated under Rule 6(4) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Building Rules, 1972. The church authorities have not applied permission for such conversion of the residential building into worship place with the building plan through concerned panchayat. The people of Mathavilai village have made objection for conducting prayer meeting in the said house building as the same is only 300 meter away from the temple, namely, Sri Bathrakaliamman temple. Since there was a law and order problem arose, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Padmanabhapuram vide his proceedings dated 04.11.2005 directed the petitioner church not to conduct prayer meeting in the said building as the same has been done without getting prior permission from the authorities. After purchasing a residential house and then converting it as a church without prior permission under the Panchayat Act cannot be accepted under the principles of right to practice religion. The District Administration upon considering all the above aspects rightly passed the impugned order rejecting the permission sought for by the appellant to demolish the existing building and to construct new church building and also to convene the yearly convention meeting in the said place. There is no infirmity in the order of the learned Writ Court and prays to dismiss the present writ appeals.

10. We have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the available records carefully.

11. It is seen from the affidavit filed by the appellant/Pastor.J.Titus, wherein it has been stated that the petitioner church namely Full Gospel Pentecostals Church was established in the year 1990 and has been rendering religious service to the members of the church for the past 35 years. At present, there are about 120 members in the church. It is also stated that in the year 2001, in order to expand the church activities, one of their members, namely Mr.Arul Dhas, gifted his land in Re.S.No. 301/22 measuring 6 ½ cnets with building to the church and the same was registered as Doc.No.125/2001 dated 15.02.2001. From then onwards, the building in the said property has been treated as Mathavilai church of Full Gospel Pentecostals Church and they have been conducting periodic prayer meetings and yearly convention in the said church. It is further stated that in the year 2003, the church purchased the adjacent land to an extent of 6 ½ cents in Re.S.No.301/22 from one Mr.John and the same was registered as Doc.No.1543/2003 dated 01.12.2003.

12. A perusal of affidavit filed by the appellant, it shows that the Full Gospel Pentecostals Church was established in the year 1990, in the year 2001, Mr.Arul Dhas gifted his land measuring 6 ½ cents with a building to the church and subsequently, they purchased the adjacent land to the extent of 6 ½ cents in the year 2003. It further shows that in the year 2001 onwards the building in the said property has been treated as Mathavilai church and they have been conducting periodic prayer meetings. From the averments in the affidavit, it is clear that after availing gift measuring 6 ½ cents with a building on 15.02.2001, the said building has been treated as church.

13. It is seen from the records that the appellant / Vinil Sathish sent a letter to the Executive Officer, Mandaikadu Town Panchayat wherein he has requested to effecting name change in the revenue records pertaining to the land land in Re.S.No.301/22. Accordingly, the panchayat assessed the property tax for the period from May 2006 to July 2008 for the building in D.No.10/31B in the name of the Church. It is to be noted that a group of people objected to conduct prayer meetings in the church. In pursuance thereto, the Revenue Divisional Officer/fourth respondent vide his proceedings dated 24.11.2005 informed the appellant that the prayer meeting was conducted without getting prior permission and authorities have already directed not to conduct meetings. Aggrieved over the same, Pastor.Vinil Sathish filed the writ petition in WP.No.39683 of 2005 challenging the order dated 24.11.2005 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer and consequently direct the official respondents to forbear from interfering in the rights of the petitioner therein in conducting Full Gospel Pentecostals Church in D.No.10/31B, Mathavilai. This Court by order dated 09.12.2005 quashed the said proceedings and also held that since the question raised in the present writ petition is with reference to the interference by the revenue people and local police with the right of the residents in worshipping in the Church, applying the ratio laid down in Mohamed Gani Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District and others in WP.No.5202 of 1998 dated 14.07.2005. Admittedly, no appeal has been filed as against the above said order and hence, the said order holds the field till date.

14. It is seen from the records the District Collector in his proceedings dated 01.12.2009, passed an order after the representation given by the appellant on 12.10.2009 requesting to change of name in the panchayat records. The relevant portion of the order dated 01.12.2009 is extracted hereunder:-

                   One Thiru.Aruldhas, Madhavilai, Azhaganparai in Manavalakurichy Village in Kalkulam Taluk used to conduct Pentecost prayer meeting by one Pastor Jonson in his residential house bearing Door No.10/31B of Mondaikkadu Town Panchayat without getting permission. Later Thiru.Aruldhas gifted 6.5 cents of land in Sy.No.301/22 of Manavalakurichy Village along with the above building thereon to the Full Gospel Pentecostals Church, Mathavilai, Vide Document No.125/2001.

                   ....

                   1)The residential building bearing Door No.10/31B of Mondaikkadu Town Panchayat has been converted into Pentecostals Church without obtaining due prior approval of the Collector as required under Rule 6(4) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Building Rules, 1972.

                   2)The Church authorities have not applied for permissions to such conversion of the residential building into a worshipping place with building plan through the concerned Panchayat.

                   As appeal shall lie against the above orders to Government.

15. Aggrieved over the same, the said Vinil Sathish filed a writ petition in WP.No.29074 of 2011 and this Court, vide order dated 29.10.2021 dismissed the said writ petition. Relevant portion of the said order is extracted hereunder:-

                   4.Approval from the competent authorities is a mandatory provision and without getting approval from the competent authority building construction cannot be made. In the present case, the petitioner obtained the building plan approval for the residential building and subsequently, converted into was a the said residential Pentecostal Church. Such building conversion is impermissible under Law. Thus, the authorities have rightly rejected the petition and the Government also rejected the application submitted by the Writ petitioner.

                   5.Learned Counsel for the Petitioner made a submission fresh application is submitted. This Court is of the considered opinion that the illegality regarding the conversion of residential building into a religious institution caversion be approved. contemplates approval Permission is required several criteria and Act and Rules for the purpose of grant of for religious institution. Allowing institution in a residential area cannot be granted in a routine a religious cause inconvenience manner as such religious institutions may to the people of that locality. Thus, grant of approval or 'conversion to run religious institution is to be considered based on various facts and strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules.

                   6.This being the factum, the Petitioner without getting cannot as convert the residential building any approval Pentecostal Church for the purpose of providing gospel services. In view of the facts and circumstances, the Petitioner has not established any acceptable legal ground.

16. From the order passed by the District Collector dated 01.12.2009 reveals that the person, who gifted the land to the appellant, informed before the District Collector that one Pastor Jonson used to conduct pentecostal prayer meetings in his residential building bearing Door No.10/31B without getting permission. It is pertinent to mention that the residential building in Door No.10/31B has been converted into pentecostal church after obtaining the said property by way of gift deed in the year 2001 without obtaining due prior approval of the Collector as required under Rule 6(4) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Building Rules, 1972. It is to be noted that the church authorities have not applied for permission for such conversion of the residential building into worship place with a building plan through concerned authorities.

17. At this juncture, it is relevant to mention that Article 25 and Article 26 of the Constitution of India, deals with Right to freedom of Religious. Article 25(1) of the Constitution of India reads as follows:-

                   25. Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion.—(1) Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion.

18. Article 26 of the Constitution of India reads as follows:-

                   26. Freedom to manage religious affairs.—Subject to public order, morality and health, every religious denomination or any section thereof shall have the right— (a) to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes; (b) to manage its own affairs in matters of religion; (c) to own and acquire movable and immovable property; and (d) to administer such property in accordance with law.

19. Article 51A(e) of the Constitution of India reads as follows:-

                   51A. Fundamental duties.—It shall be the duty of every citizen of India— (e) to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities; to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women;

20. It is pertinent to mention that Articles 25 & 26 of the Constitution of India guaranteed protection of religious activities and right to practice religion, which are subject to limitations of public order, health and morality. Every breach of peace does not lead to public disorder. Public order is something more than ordinary maintenance of law and order. Public order, law and order and security of the State are playing viral role in the society at large. The distinction between “law and order” and “public order” has been pointed out succinctly by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arun Ghosh Vs State of West Bengal, 1970 MLJ (Crl) 734 (SC), wherein it has been held that “the true distinction between areas of “law and order” and “public order” is one of the degree and the extent of the reach of the act in question upon society”. We are of the view that approval from the competent authorities is mandatory and, without such approval, building construction cannot be carried out. Therefore, the rejection order passed by the District Collector, mentioning law and order as one of the reasons, cannot be faulted.

21. In view of the above, the appellant may be continued to perform prayer meetings in the existing premises. It is for the appellant to approach the concern authorities for demolition and re-construction of residential building alone in the petition mentioned survey numbers, in the manner known to law, if so advised.

22. With the above observations, these writ appeals are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.