Unsubstantiated Apprehension: Madras High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Construction Of Church Building

The High Court was considering a petition filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the impugned order passed by the District Collector (first respondent) and a direction to remove the newly constructed Church building put up by the private respondent.

The Division Bench of Justice M. Dhandapani and Justice N. Dilip Kumar held, “The apprehension expressed by the petitioner regarding a possible law and order problem, by itself, cannot be a ground to interfere with an administrative order, particularly when the competent authority has considered the relevant materials and the field inspection report does not disclose any such existing dispute or objection from the local residents. The constitutional guarantee of peaceful coexistence of persons professing different faiths cannot be curtailed merely on the basis of an unsubstantiated apprehension.”

Advocate Karthikeya Venkitachalapathy represented the Petitioner while Special Government Pleader M. Mahaboob Athiff represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The petitioner, a District Executive Committee Member of Hindu Munnani, which is a Hindu social organization, claimed that Muthumariamman Temple is situated at Dhayapuram Village and, in close proximity to the said temple, the private respondent had undertaken reconstruction of a Church building without obtaining prior permission from the District Collector, as required under Rule 4(3) of the Tamil Nadu Building Rules, 1997. The petitioner brought it to the Court’s notice that he had earlier approached the Court and the Court had directed the District Collector to consider the application in accordance with law. The petitioner submitted that as per the Court’s order, the District Collector ought to have afforded an opportunity to the local residents and other persons who may be affected by the proposed construction.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that there was an existing prayer hall at the subject premises for about 25 years. The materials placed before the Court also disclosed that an application for reconstruction of the existing building was submitted as early as September 3, 2018 and that the local authority had granted plan approval on September 4, 2018. The Bench noted that thereafter, the period of validity of the approval was also extended by the competent authority.

The Bench found that the field inspection report specifically recorded that the distance between the two religious institutions was about 45 metres and the local residents, who were enquired into during inspection, stated that worship had been taking place in the prayer hall for about 25 years and that they had no objection to its continuance.

“In the absence of any material to establish that the construction or use of the prayer hall is in violation of any statutory provision or that the impugned order has been passed contrary to the specific directions issued by this Court in the earlier writ petition, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the decision of the District Collector”, it added.

Considering the fact that the petitioner was unable to demonstrate that the impugned order suffered from any illegality, procedural irregularity, arbitrariness or violation of the directions issued by the Court in the earlier writ petition, the Bench dismissed the Petition.

Cause Title: G.Marimuthu v. The District Collector (Case No.: W.P(MD)No.14181 of 2021)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocate Karthikeya Venkitachalapathy

Respondent: Special Government Pleader M.Mahaboob Athiff, Advocate R. Karunanidhi

Click here to read/download Order