IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2009 / 10TH ASHADHA 1931 WA.No. 942 of 2008() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.4978/2008 Dated 21/02/2008 .................... APPELLANT(S): 3RD PARTY ----------------------- K.MOHANAN, KAMUKINKODE ROADARIKATHU, MELARIYODE WARD, MARANALLUR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS.MR.N.NAGARESH MR.T.V.VINU RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & R1 TO R5 -------------------------- 1. KOLLEMCODE DAIVA SABHA MINISTRIES INDIA, MELARIYOD, KAMUKINKODE, VELIYAMKODE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY PASTOR, LITTLE SAM, S/O.DASAYYAN. 2. STATE OF EKRALA, REPRESENTED BY HOME SECRETARY, GOVT. OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. REVENUE DIVISION OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MARANALLUR POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. MARANALLUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MARANALLUR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY. BY ADV.MR.K.B.PRADEEP FOR R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.BENJAMIN PAUL FOR R.2 TO 5 BY ADV. MR.R.S.KALKURA FOR R6 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- W.A.No.942 of 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT The appellant is not a party to the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition was filed by the first respondent herein, aggrieved by Ext.P6 communication issued by the fourth respondent Revenue Divisional Officer. The petitioner was informed that the petitioner should conduct the religious ceremonies without causing any hindrance to the neighbours and that he should obtain appropriate permission from the authority concerned for the construction of a church. According to the writ petitioner, there is no new construction of a church, it is only replacement of the roof of a prayer hall existing since 1997. He had obtained Ext.P7 permit from the Panhayat for roof changing and that the said permit had validity up to 13.12.2010. In that view of the matter, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition to the extent of directing the Revenue Divisional Officer to ensure completion of the roof changing works as per the permit. The appellant would submit that he was a necessary party to the writ petition, since Ext.P6 order happened to be issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer on his complaint produced as Annexures A1 to A3 and A5. The main contention is that in view of Annexure-A7 Government order, without sanction from the District administration, nobody can construct a church or a prayer hall. Whether it is a construction in terms of the Government order itself is a disputed fact, W.A.No.942 of 2008 2 in view of Ext.P7 building permit issued as early as on 14.12.2007 for roof changing of an existing structure. Be that as it may, since Ext.P6 order happened to be issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer on the complaint of the petitioner, it is only appropriate that the Revenue Divisional Officer, in case he is the competent authority under Annexure-A7, takes a final decision on Annexures A1 to A3 and A5 representations with notice also to the parties. Therefore, there will be a direction to the fourth respondent Revenue Divisional Officer to take a decision on the representations filed by the appellant with notice to the appellant, first respondent and the sixth respondent grama panchayat. We make it clear that in view of Ext.P7 building permit, the roof changing works of the building as per the permit shall not be obstructed. The other direction to conduct the religious functions in the prayer hall without any nuisance to the neighbours as directed in Ext.P6 will continue. Writ Appeal is disposed of as above. KURIAN JOSEPH, Judge K.SURENDRA MOHAN,Judge css/