Remanded

S.Prasanth and Anor v. State of Kerala and Others

Kerala HC2 Mar 2016WA/995/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ appeal challenged the Single Judge's relegation of the petitioners to Civil Court regarding illegal church construction. The Court directed the petitioners to approach the District Collector within four weeks to determine if the structure was new construction or renovation of an existing church, with the Collector to pass appropriate orders.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to submit representation to District Collector within four weeks; Collector to determine nature of construction and pass appropriate orders.

S.Prasanth and Anor Vs State of Kerala… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH 2016/12TH PHALGUNA, 1937

¶5

WA.No. 995 of 2009 ( E)

¶6

WP(C).34313/2008, DATED 30-03-2009

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONERS IN WPC.:

¶8

1. S.PRASANTH, NADUVILADATH, KARUKACHAL P.O., KOTTAYAM.

¶9

2. RAVINDRANATH, MANGLAMKUNNU HOUSE, KARUKACHAL P.O., KOTTAYAM.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.SOORAJ T.ELENJICKAL SMT.P.M.MAZNA MANSOOR

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

2. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE & ECONOMY, NEW DELHI.

¶14

3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM.

¶15

4. THE SECRETARY, KARUKACHAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KARUKACHAL P.O., KOTTAYAM.

¶16

5. K.P.SAMUEL, PONPUZHA BUILDINGS, KARUKACHAL P.O., KOTTAYAM.

¶17

R1 & 3 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.I.DAVIS R2 BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASST.SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA R4 BY SRI.M.P.M.KUTTY

¶18

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

¶20

ASHOK BHUSHAN, CJ &

¶21

**A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * *** W.A.No.995 of 2009

¶22

Dated this the 2^nd day of March 2016

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

Shaffique,J

¶25

Petitioners in W.P.C.No.34313 of 2008 are the appellants who challenge the judgment dated 30/03/2009 by which the learned Single Judge relegated the petitioners to approach the Civil Court for the relief sought for.

¶26

Petitioners have approached this Court seeking for a direction to the respondents 1 to 4 to prohibit the illegal construction being made by the 5^th respondent violating Ext.P1 guidelines. The facts as disclosed in the writ petition would indicate that the petitioners, who are the residents of Karukachal village, contend that the area in question is a residential area inhabited by persons of Hindu religion. The 5^th respondent, claiming to be a Pastor of Pentecost, has started construction of a new building after obtaining a building permit intending for utilising the said building as a prayer hall for worship. This, according to the petitioner, is totally in violation of Ext.P1

¶27

W.A.No.995/2009

¶28

¶29

guidelines and hence when they approached this Court seeking for the aforesaid directions, the 5^th respondent has taken a contention that there was an existing Church which has to be renovated and for that purpose, building permit has to be obtained. The learned Single Judge observed that, in view of the fact that there is a dispute as to whether it is renovation or not, petitioners' remedy was to approach the Civil Court and obtain appropriate orders.

¶30

The learned counsel for the appellants, however, would rely upon the building permit issued by the local authority as Ext.R5(b) produced by the 5^th respondent. In Ext.R5(b), it is indicated that the building permit dated 12/03/2008 has been issued in favour of Sri.K.P.Saseendra Kumar for erection of a Church. In fact, earlier, some other information was given which was corrected in the building permit. The petitioners later produced Ext.P5 application submitted by the aforesaid K.P.Saseendra Kumar for building permit wherein the nature of occupancy is stated as “family residential”. According to the learned counsel, these facts itself would indicate that a new building was being constructed and it is not renovation of an

¶31

W.A.No.995/2009

¶32

¶33

existing Church. Petitioners also rely upon Ext.P6 dated 16/01/2009 by which the Panchayat had issued a stop memo restraining the 5^th respondent from making any construction in the premises.

¶34

The factual circumstances involved in the case and the materials made available prima facie indicate that what was sought to be constructed was a new building, but in view of the contentions raised by the 5^th respondent that an existing Church was being renovated, the competent authority namely the District Collector can consider the question as to whether there was an existing Church or whether a new construction is being made for the purpose of converting the same into a Church. If a new construction is being made, necessarily orders have to be obtained in terms with the provision of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and the Rules framed thereunder and necessary compliance has to be made as per Ext.P1 guidelines.

¶35

In the result, this writ appeal is disposed of modifying the judgment of the learned Single Judge to the following extent:

¶36

i) The petitioner shall submit a representation to the District Collector in this regard within a period of four weeks from

¶37

W.A.No.995/2009

¶38

¶39

the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

¶40

ii) The District Collector shall consider whether a new

¶41

building is being constructed or whether there was an existing Church which requires to be renovated in terms of Ext.R5(b) building permit and appropriate orders shall be passed in accordance with law after hearing the affected parties including the petitioners.

¶42

(sd/-)

¶43

(ASHOK BHUSHAN, CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶44

(sd/-) (A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE)

¶45

True Copy PA to Judge

¶46

jsr/02/03/16

S.Prasanth and Anor v. State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Prasanth and Anor v. State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Ravindran Vs Kerala State,Rep;by Registrar.Co-Op,Dept

Dr Remjith G.S. Vs Manikantan Krishnan Nair

A.Sunil Vs T.Ravindran

Ramapuram Grama Panchayat Vs St.Basil Industries India (P) Limited

T.S. Abdul Khader Vs Shajimon B

Neseeha Vs Janadhipathya Vanitha Sanghatana