K REGHUNATH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We dismiss the writ petition; but we pass no orders regarding costs. And we shall give our reasons later.

(2.) The petitioner is an advocate practising in Tellicherry; and he, as a taxpayer, has filed this writ petition for the issuance of a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the State of Kerala and the District Collector, Cannanore to forbear from spending any amount from the public funds of Kerala State to reconstruct the places of worship destroyed during the recent disturbances at Tellicherry and the villages nearby. On the night of 29th - 30th December 1971 (the counter affidavit says it was on the night of 28th - 29th), there were some unfortunate incidents at Tellicherry and the surrounding villages between two sections of the people, Hindus and Muslims; and as a result, some shops, buildings and places of worship of both the sections were destroyed. The Government started relief measures; and a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was sanctioned from the Distress Relief Fund for distribution of ad hoc grants to those who were rendered homeless and to those whose houses were damaged. Arrangements for the free supply of one week's ration to the affected families were also made. The Government constituted a Peace Committee; and the Committee was requested to make a report regarding the damage caused by the incidents to religious and educational institutions, private houses including homes of some serving defence personnel, fishing vessels, etc. The Committee consisted of 16 members, Members of the Legislative Assembly, Chairman of the Municipal Council, representatives of political parties, other prominent persons, etc. Ultimately, the Government passed an order on 13th January 1972 (Ext. R1), wherein was stated in Para.2:

(3.) The State has filed a counter affidavit, wherein is averred that the damage or the destruction caused was not confined to the houses and places of worship belonging to members of any particular religion or religious denomination, but was more general and widespread; and that the moneys allotted for relief work were from the Distress Relief Fund. The constitution of the Peace Committee is admitted; but it is averred that the Committee was directed that, in assessing the damage, the cost of restoration to the condition existing prior to the incidents was to be the guiding factor. The averment of the petitioner that the amount sanctioned under Ex. R1 was to reconstruct the places of worship of a particular religious denomination is denied; and it is submitted that what is forbidden under Art.27 of the Constitution is only the "specific appropriation" of the proceeds of any tax in payment of expenses for the promotion or maintenance of any particular religion or religious denomination; and that, in the present case, there is no question of favouring any particular religion or religious denomination. The counter affidavit continues to state that the Government has not sought to utilise any State fund for promoting any particular religion or its cause; and that Art.27 prohibits only the compulsion to pay any tax the proceeds of which are specifically appropriated in payment of expenses for the promotion or maintenance of any particular religion or religious denomination. And it is further averred that Art.27 does not preclude the application of the general revenues of the State in payment of expenses for the promotion of any religion. It is also pointed out in the counter affidavit that the Distress Relief Fund "is made up of contribution by the Government, District and Taluk Committees and by the Public, Association, Clubs, etc."