IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 4978 of 2008(P)
1. KOLLEMCODE DAIVA SABHA MINISTRIES INDIA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MARANALOOR
5. MARANALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MARANALOOR,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.B.PRADEEP
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :21/02/2008
O R D E R
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 4978 of 2008
---------------------------------
Dated, this the 21st day of February, 2008
J U D G M E N T
Learned Government Pleader on the basis of the instructions
from the District Collector submits that the petitioner had filed an
application, Ext.P3, before the District Collector and the District
Collector forwarded the same to the local authority. The local
authority granted Ext.P4 permission. After some complaints
received from organizations and individuals regarding the prayers
and rituals which are being conducted by the petitioner Sabha, the
Revenue Divisional Officer has passed Ext.P6 order. Under Ext.P6,
the direction is only to regulate the prayers and worships in the
church to be constructed by the petitioner Sabha in a manner
conducive to the harmonious living by the persons belonging to
various communities and religions in the locality.
2. Shri.K.B.Pradeep submits that the grievance of the
petitioner is regarding the latter part of Ext.P6, wherein it is
ordered that the District Collector’s permission also should be
obtained before the building is constructed. I have heard the
submissions of the learned Government Pleader also. I have gone
through the various documents. The building permit has been
WP(C) No. 4978/2008
-2-
validly issued in favour of the petitioner by the statutory authority,
5th respondent. So long as Ext.P7 is in currency, the insistence of a
further permit from the District Collector is not justified. I,
therefore, allow the writ petition to the extent of directing the 4th
respondent to ensure the completion of the roof changing works of
the prayer hall without being obstructed anybody else. It is made
clear that the other prayers in the writ petition has not been
considered and that Ext.P6 has been quashed only to the extent it
insists of permit from the District Collector regarding completion of
constructions. In other words, this judgment grants permit to the
petitioner to carry out the construction as permitted in Ext.P7. The
other prayers in the writ petition are left open to be decided, if
necessary, in prospective other proceedings.
This writ petition is allowed to the above extent.
(PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE)
jg