SURESH CHANDRAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is the Pastor of a Christian Religious denomination called Assemblies of God, has approached this Court, alleging that his fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India, have been infringed by the official respondents, by prohibiting the holding of prayers of that religious denominations at Panthavila Church. The brief facts of the case are the following:

(2.) The above said congregation purchased 8 cents of land as per Ext.P2 deed. A prayer hall was constructed there, roofed with sheets, in the year 2004. The prayer is held on three days in a week, in the hall with the following time schedule: On Fridays from 10 a.m. to 12 a.m., on Saturdays from 6.30 p.m. to 8 p.m. and on Sundays from 8 a.m. to 11.30 a.m. It is submitted that no loud speakers or other instruments for amplifying sound are used. There are no residential buildings in the neighbourhood of the hall, it is pointed out. It is also submitted that respondents 4 to 8 are activists of R.S.S., who are not residing anywhere near the prayer hall. They filed representations before the authorities, alleging that the prayer is causing sound pollution and nuisance. They also alleged that the petitioner is also trying to convert persons to Christianity.

(3.) Apparently, on the basis of the above said representations, the 3rd respondent Dy. S.P. directed the petitioner to move the District Collector for permission, for running the prayer hall under the G.O. dated 16.1.2002. The said order is produced as Ext.P3 in the Writ Petition. So the petitioner submitted an application on 1.1.2005 and sought permission to run the prayer hall. The same was rejected by Ext.P4 order dt. 5.3.2005. The District Collector, further issued Ext.P5 order dated 4.5.2005, based on the petition filed by the party respondents and the reports obtained on that representation from the R.D.O. and the Dy. Superintendent of Police, staying the functioning of the prayer hall. The petitioner challenge Exts.P3, P4 and P5 on several grounds. It is submitted that the impugned orders Exts.P4 and P5 have been passed without hearing him. According to him, clause 23 of Ext. P3, which requires permission for establishing places of religious worship, is ultra vires of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. It is also his case that Ext.P3 guidelines have been issued without the authority of law. The allegations of causing nuisance and trying for religious conversion etc., are denied by him. So, according to the petitioner, on the facts also, the impugned orders are unsustainable.