IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL THURSDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2011 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 6057 of 2011(F) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. BINU BABY, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.BABY, PANICKASSERIL KIZHAKKETHIL, POOZHIKKADU, KUDASSINADU P.O., PANDALAM-689512. 2. BABY, AGED 80 YEARS, S/O.UNNUNNI, PANICKASSERIL KIZHAKKETHIL, POOZHIKKADU, KUDASSINADU P.O., PANDALAM-689512. BY ADV. SRI. K.SHAJ SRI.SAJJU.S RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ADOOR. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PANDALAM. 3. NALINAKSHI, W/O.RAMACHANDRAN, CHANDRAVIL HOUSE, POOZHIKADU MURI, KURUMPALA VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK. 4. RAMACHANDRAN, S/O.CHANDRAVIL HOUSE, POOZHIKADU MURI, KURUMPALA VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK. ADV. SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN FOR R3&4 SRI.P.G.SURESH FOR R3&4 SMT.K.VIDYA FOR R3&4 SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.K. ABOOBACKER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE 3RD & 4TH RESPONDENTS TO THE RDO, ADOOR. EXT.P2 COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.572/PTN/D8/10/ASD DATED 14.5.2010 ISSUED BY THE R1 TO THE PETITIONERS. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(A) COPY OF G.O.(P).NO.217/2005/HOME DATED 25.7.2005. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE. CL PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. HARILAL,JJ. .................................................................... W.P.(C).NO.6057 OF 2011 ................................................................... Dated this the 15th day of December, 2011. JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J. Counsel for the petitioners seeks adjournment. We are not inclined to grant adjournment as the matter has been pending for quite some time. 2. The petitioners, who belong to Christian Pentacost 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 neighbours, 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 neighbouring people. She relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Church of God v. K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare Association (2007 SCC 282) in support of her contentions. W.P.(C).NO.6057 OF 2011 : 2 : 3. As directed by us, the second respondent has filed 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 15.7.2010 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 1 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 W.P.(C).NO.6057 OF 2011 : 3 : 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. The only question which arises for decision by us is whether the action of respondents 1 and 2 in summoning the petitioners to their office and in instructing them to obtain consent from the District Collector can be branded as harassment. According to us, the above question can be answered only in the negative. We decline jurisdiction and dismiss the writ petition. This judgment however will not stand in the way of the petitioners conducting public community prayers after obtaining prior permission of the District Collector in terms of Ext.R1(a) G.O. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. K. HARILAL, JUDGE. cl