Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 519 (AP)

Jamait E Ahle Hadees Sirivella v. State Of A. P.

2024-05-06

RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

body2024
JUDGMENT : Aggrieved by the rejection orders passed by District Collector Nandyal District, for construction of Ahle Hadees Masjid (Mosque) in the land admeasuring Ac.0.09 cents situated in RS.No.421/1, Telugupeta, Sirivella village, Nandyal Mandal, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri M.R.K.Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Venkata Reddy Gajjula, learned Standing Counsel for ZPP, MPP and Gram Panchayath. Sri Venkata Narayana, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the contents of the affidavit submitted that, the petitioners society has made a representation/application dated 17.09.2022 to the collector concerned seeking permission for construction of mosque which was rejected, even without hearing petitioners, on ground that Jamiat-e-Ahle Hadith women entering and offering prayers at Masjids is against the customs of Tabliq Jamath and one Abdul Salam, local YSRCP leader is supporting public Jamiat group and influenced the Gram Panchayat and Revenue Officials through MLA not to give permission for construction of said mosque. He further contended that in W.P.(C).No.472 of 2019 the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that, “as per Islamic text entry of women into mosque for Namaz is permitted”. By virtue of G.O.Ms.No.376/1 dated 29.11.2012, the authority has to give an opportunity to the applicant to show cause against such refusal. In the present case no such show cause has been issued to the petitioner before passing the refusal order except calling them to their office. Simply calling the petitioners to their office does not mean that they have heard the petitioners before refusal. Further, the Collector cannot reject the petitioners’ application at the instance of local political leaders. In these circumstances, if such refusal order is allowed to subsist it affects the rights of the petitioners. As such, prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the interest of the petitioners. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader on counter submitted that, as there is a law and order problem and to ensure and maintain the public peace, the petitioner’s application has been withheld. As such, prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the interest of the petitioners. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader on counter submitted that, as there is a law and order problem and to ensure and maintain the public peace, the petitioner’s application has been withheld. By virtue of G.O.Ms.No.376 dated 29.11.2012 as per amendment rule 26, no site shall be used for the construction of building intended for public worship or religious purpose without the prior approval of the Collector of the District who may refuse such approval if, in his opinion the use of the site for the proposed construction of building is likely to endanger public peace and order after giving an opportunity to the applicant to show cause against such refusal. Moreover, the respondents scrupulously followed the directions of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh passed in W.P.No.40486/2022 and after collecting reports from different authorities, the authority has righty rejected permission for construction of building. 5. Sri G.Venkat Reddy, learned Standing Counsel submitted that Gram Panchayat is not competent authority to deal with the petitioners application, as they can only recommend to the Collector for passing appropriate orders by virtue of the said GO.Ms.No.376. In fact, pursuant to the direction of this Court, the collector passed orders. 6. Perused the material available on record. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have made an application for construction of a mosque vide application dated 26.03.2022 and 17.09.2022. Earlier the Gram Panchayat has passed a resolution rejecting the petitioners’ application and the same has been assailed by the petitioners before this Court by filing writ petition vide W.P.No.40486 of 2022 and this Court has disposed of the same on 17.04.2023 directing the 2nd respondent-District Collector, Nandyal to consider the application of the petitioners dated 17.09.2022 for grant of permission to construct a Masjid in RS.No.421/1, Telugupeta, Sirivella village, Nandyal Mandal. Pursuant to the said direction, the collector concerned-respondent No.2 passed the orders vide Rc.C1/560/M/2023 dated 15.05.2023. 8. A perusal of the order would indicate that the said Collector has taken due note of the instructions of the local political leaders before considering the petitioners application. Pursuant to the said direction, the collector concerned-respondent No.2 passed the orders vide Rc.C1/560/M/2023 dated 15.05.2023. 8. A perusal of the order would indicate that the said Collector has taken due note of the instructions of the local political leaders before considering the petitioners application. Further, the G.O.Ms.No.376, which is relevant in the present case reads as follows: “No site shall be used for the construction of a building intended for public worship or religious purposes without the prior approval of the Collector of the District who may refuse such approval if, in his opinion, the use of the site for the proposed construction of the building is likely to endanger public peace and order, after giving an opportunity to the applicant to show cause against such refusal” 9. By virtue of the said G.O., the concerned Collector should give an opportunity to the applicants i.e., petitioners herein to show cause against such refusal. In the present case, except inviting them to his office no opportunity to show cause was given to petitioners before issuing impugned order. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner while relying on the order of Hon’ble Apex Court in W.P.(C).No.472 of 2019 contended that as per Islamic texts that entry of woman into Mosque for Namaz is permitted. 10. If a show cause notice was issued before passing refusal order, the petitioner could have raised all the grounds that are raised before this Court. However, this Court is not inclined to adjudicate in that aspect. Further, the authority cannot rely on the instructions/recommendations of the local political leaders while rejecting the petitioners’ application. Since, no opportunity was provided to the petitioner as envisaged in the GO.Ms.No.376, the order impugned is ex-facie illegal and liable to be set said and it has to be remitted back to the District Collector for adjudication afresh. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of by setting aside the impugned endorsement vide Rc.C1/560/M/2023 dated 15.05.2023 and the matter is remanded back to the Collector concerned for adjudicating afresh. The petitioner is at liberty to submit a detailed further explanation, if any, by raising all the grounds that are raised or urged before this Court and the Collector concerned shall pass a reasoned order after providing an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and communicate the same to the petitioners in accordance with law. There shall no order as to costs. There shall no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.