Madras High Court upholds permission to reconstruct church near Hindu temple

Justices M. Dhandapani and N. Dilip Kumar refused to interfere with order granting permission for church reconstruction.

Why court refused to interfere?

The matter reached the High Court in 2021. In April 2021, the court directed the district administration to lock and seal the premises after the petitioner filed a plea alleging that the reconstruction of the church building was undertaken without obtaining prior permission from the district collector.

The court then allowed the respondent (not named in the ruling) to seek permission from the District Collector to reconstruct the prayer hall. Following the permission, the petitioner sought directions to quash the order, arguing that permitting a Christian prayer hall in such proximity to the temple would cause law-and-order issues in the locality.

The respondents, however, submitted that a prayer hall had existed at the site for around 25 years and that the construction in question was merely a reconstruction of the old building, which had become structurally weak.

The court noted that a field inspection had found that the temple and the prayer hall were about 45 metres apart. It also noted that the local residents had informed the authorities that worship had been conducted at the site for around 25 years and that they had no objection to the continuation of the prayer hall.

The bench held that there was no evidence to show that the construction or use of the prayer hall violated any statutory provision or that the district collector’s order was contrary to the directions issued by the High Court in the earlier proceedings.

“In the absence of any material to establish that the construction or use of the prayer hall is in violation of any statutory provision or that the impugned order has been passed contrary to the specific directions issued by this Court in the earlier writ petition, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the decision of the District Collector,” it said.

Rejecting the petitioner’s apprehension on the possible law and order problem, the ruling held that it was no ground to interfere with an administrative order, adding that the petitioner was not a resident of the locality and had failed to place material demonstrating any illegality, procedural irregularity, arbitrariness or violation of the court’s earlier directions.