Petitioners challenge Ext. P4 proceedings of the District Collector permitting re-construction of Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church Orthodox Center in 36.274 cents of land situated in Sy. Nos. 166/2 and 166/3 of Mulanthuruthy Village. 2. The petitioners are residents of Mulanthuruthy Village. According to them, the area in question has a history of religious and communal tension and for the last 30 years, the 1st respondent had issued various prohibitory orders under Section 144 of the Crl. P.C. Two groups in the locality claimed superiority and were fighting each other for quite some time. It is stated that by construction of the church, normalcy, which is now prevailing in the locality, will be disturbed, which aspect was conveniently discarded by the 1st respondent while issuing Ext. P4. It is further contended that the 1st respondent has failed to assess the ground realities and the factional disputes between two groups and if Ext. P4 permission is not revoked, there is every possibility of further disturbance in the area. That apart, reconstruction in the form of a church would result in sound pollution, especially when there are other place of worship within 100 meters from the present location.
3. Counter affidavit is filed by the 1st respondent inter alia stating that the request made by the Diocesan Metropolitan was enquired through the Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi and District Police Chief, Ernakulam (Rural), Aluva. It was reported that there is no scope for any communal issues. Further, the neighbours do not have any objection in re- constructing the Orthodox Center. It was indicated that as there is some dispute between Orthodox and Jacobite communities, both the parties are to be heard. It is also indicated that it is only a re-construction of an existing church and there is no report of any communal disharmony if the church is reconstructed. This resulted in Ext. P4 order to be issued. It is therefore contended that Ext. P4 is issued in strict compliance with the Government Orders as reflected in the Manual of Guidelines dated 25.7.2005. It is issued subject to the condition that the reconstruction shall be done strictly in compliance with the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011 and with the permission of the local authority.
4. Counter affidavit is filed by the 6th respondent. It is contended that the church was kept locked for considerably long time on account of a dispute among the parishioners regarding the right to worship in Marthoman Church, Mulanthuruthy. The Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church purchased 12.50 cents of land in Mulanthuruthy Village in 1982 and constructed a catholicate church. Later, adjoining properties were also purchased and the total extent available is 36.274 cents. The church was closed during the period 1975 to 1984 on account of certain factional disputes. Later, it was decided to construct a place of worship for the convenience of the parishioners and foundation stone for the Centre was laid on 7.12.1982 and building was constructed. Since then, various religious service is being carried out in the said centre. Due to old age of the building and because of non- availability of space inside the center, it was decided to demolish the existing catholic center and to construct a new one in its place. Such a decision was taken and after getting permission from the statutory authorities including the 1st respondent, the work was entrusted to M/s. Paps India Engineering Contractors and they have commenced the work. It is therefore contended that all steps for reconstruction of the said centre has been taken in accordance with law. That apart, it is further stated that there is no history of any religious or communal tension in the locality. Religious services were being conducted in the said centre since its establishment in 1982 and so far there is no law and order situation in the locality. It is also disputed that prohibitory orders were issued under Section 144 of the Crl. P.C. The respondent supported Ext. P4 by stating that the said order came to be passed after a detailed consideration of the entire issues relating to the same.
5. Having regard to this factual situation, the only question to be considered is whether the petitioners are entitled to challenge Ext. P4 or whether there is any illegality in the same.
6. Ext. P4 came to be issued based on the guidelines prescribed in the Manual of Guidelines to prevent and control communal disturbance and to promote communal harmony issued as per Government Order, G.O(P) No. 217/05/Home dated 25.7.2005. Apparently, this is an instance where already a centre was functioning and according to the 6th respondent, they have been performing religious rituals and prayers in the said centre. What is required now was only a reconstruction of the same as a church to enable the 6th respondent to have a new building with additional space so that their religious rituals can be performed in a better fashion. True that some persons may not like a church being coming up, especially when there are two groups which have a history of long drawn litigations. Presence of a church which does not cause any nuisance as such to the public or communal harmony of the people of the locality cannot be prima facie termed as evoking disturbance to communal harmony. The District Collector, while issuing Ext. P4, did not mechanically pass an order. The District Collector had obtained reports from the Revenue Divisional Officer as well as the District Police Chief and the enquiry report reveals that there is no chance for any communal issues. The petitioners have not produced any materials to indicate that any communal issues may develop if the church is constructed. Apparently, the property was purchased by the Diocese for construction of a religious centre and it remains a fact that for quite long number of years, they were conducting religious rituals and prayers in the said centre. When no disturbance is noticed while the centre was functioning, it is hard to believe that by reconstruction of the said centre, further communal harmony may be disturbed. Under such circumstances, when the District Collector had conducted proper enquiry in the matter in accordance with the guidelines issued, I do not think that this Court should interfere with Ext. P4 order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Scope of judicial review in such matters is very limited and there is no material to indicate that the decision is taken arbitrarily or with mala fide intention. It is for the District Administration and the State to ensure communal harmony in a particular locality and if they are sure about it, I do not think that this Court should take a different view in the matter.
In the result, there being no merit in the writ petition, the same is dismissed.
Sd/- A.M. Shaffique, Judge.
Tds/