BINU BABY Vs. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Counsel for the petitioners seeks adjournment. We are not inclined to grant adjournment as the matter has been pending for quite some time. The petitioners, who belong to Christian Pentecost Community and claim to have been conducting prayer meetings in their house in what they describe as a very calm and peaceful manner, without causing nuisance to the neighbors, have filed this writ petition alleging that at the instance of the party respondents the police officials are harassing them. The 3rd respondent has filed a detailed counter-affidavit wherein she contend on the basis of documents Ext. R3(a), (b) and (c) that the manner in which the petitioners are conducting prayer meeting is causing extreme nuisance to the neighboring people. She relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Church of God v. K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare Association, 2000 7 SCC 282 in support of her contentions.

(2.) As directed by us, the second respondent has file a detailed statement. In the statement the 2nd respondent denies the allegation that the petitioners are being harassed by the police officers at the instance of respondents 3 and 4. It is contended that on 15/07/2010 respondents 3 and 4 filed a complaint before the second respondent and the above complaint was registered as complaint No. 158/IDP/10 PDLM. The complaint was made over to the Circle Inspector of Police, Pandalam who enquired the same. It is submitted that as a part of the enquiry into the complaint, the petitioners were summoned by respondents 1 and 2. Respondents and 2 only advised the petitioners to obtain permission from the District Collector for conducting prayer meetings in their houses. Such direction it is contended is absolutely necessary in view of Ext. R1(a) Government order. In the statement it is submitted that respondents 1 and 2 have not made any kind of harassment to the petitioners and they have not obstructed the conduct of the prayer meetings but what was insisted was only that mass prayers should not be conducted without prior permission from the District Collector. To the counter-affidavit submitted by the second respondent, the petitioners have filed a reply affidavit reiterating what they have stated in the writ petition. Nothing is stated in the reply affidavit about the Government Order referred to by the Dy. S.P.