IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 942 of 2008()
1. K.MOHANAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KOLLEMCODE DAIVA SABHA MINISTRIES
... Respondent
2. STATE OF EKRALA, REPRESENTED BY
3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
4. REVENUE DIVISION OFFICER,
5. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
6. MARANALLUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
For Petitioner :SRI.N.NAGARESH
For Respondent :SRI.R.S.KALKURA
The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :01/07/2009
O R D E R
KURIAN JOSEPH & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
-------------------------------------------
W.A.No.942 of 2008
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 1st day of July, 2009
JUDGMENT
The appellant is not a party to the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition
was filed by the first respondent herein, aggrieved by Ext.P6
communication issued by the fourth respondent Revenue Divisional Officer.
The petitioner was informed that the petitioner should conduct the religious
ceremonies without causing any hindrance to the neighbours and that he
should obtain appropriate permission from the authority concerned for the
construction of a church. According to the writ petitioner, there is no new
construction of a church, it is only replacement of the roof of a prayer hall
existing since 1997. He had obtained Ext.P7 permit from the Panhayat for
roof changing and that the said permit had validity up to 13.12.2010. In that
view of the matter, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition to the
extent of directing the Revenue Divisional Officer to ensure completion of
the roof changing works as per the permit. The appellant would submit
that he was a necessary party to the writ petition, since Ext.P6 order
happened to be issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer on his complaint
produced as Annexures A1 to A3 and A5. The main contention is that in
view of Annexure-A7 Government order, without sanction from the District
administration, nobody can construct a church or a prayer hall. Whether it
is a construction in terms of the Government order itself is a disputed fact,
W.A.No.942 of 2008 2
in view of Ext.P7 building permit issued as early as on 14.12.2007 for roof
changing of an existing structure. Be that as it may, since Ext.P6 order
happened to be issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer on the complaint
of the petitioner, it is only appropriate that the Revenue Divisional Officer, in
case he is the competent authority under Annexure-A7, takes a final
decision on Annexures A1 to A3 and A5 representations with notice also to
the parties. Therefore, there will be a direction to the fourth respondent
Revenue Divisional Officer to take a decision on the representations filed
by the appellant with notice to the appellant, first respondent and the sixth
respondent grama panchayat. We make it clear that in view of Ext.P7
building permit, the roof changing works of the building as per the permit
shall not be obstructed. The other direction to conduct the religious
functions in the prayer hall without any nuisance to the neighbours as
directed in Ext.P6 will continue.
Writ Appeal is disposed of as above.
KURIAN JOSEPH, Judge
K.SURENDRA MOHAN,Judge
css/