A division bench of Justice M Dhandapani and Justice N Dilip Kumar refused to interfere with a May 13, 2021 order of the Sivagangai District Collector allowing reconstruction of the prayer hall at M. G. R. Nagar in Dhayapuram village. The August 25 judgment was delivered on a petition filed by G Marimuthu, a district executive committee member of Hindu Munnani.
Marimuthu argued that the Muthumariamman Temple stood about 45 metres from the prayer hall and that allowing a Christian place of worship at such proximity could create law-and-order problems. He also contended that the Collector should have heard local residents and others who might be affected before granting permission.
The bench rejected those objections after examining the administrative record and a field inspection report. It noted that local residents had told officials that worship had been conducted at the site for about 25 years and that they had no objection to the prayer hall continuing there.
"The constitutional guarantee of peaceful coexistence of persons professing different faiths cannot be curtailed merely on the basis of an unsubstantiated apprehension," the court said.
The judges also said a possible law-and-order problem, without supporting material, could not by itself justify overturning an administrative decision where the competent authority had considered relevant documents and the inspection report disclosed no existing dispute or objection from residents.
The litigation followed an earlier case filed in 2021 over reconstruction work at the same site. On April 28 that year, the High Court directed the district administration to lock and seal the premises after noting that construction had proceeded without prior permission from the District Collector. At the same time, it allowed the concerned respondent to apply to the Collector for approval to put up a prayer hall.
The Collector subsequently considered the application and granted permission on May 13, 2021. Marimuthu then challenged that order, seeking both its quashing and removal of the reconstructed building.
The respondent representing the prayer hall maintained that the site was not being used for a new religious institution. A prayer hall had existed there for roughly a quarter of a century, and reconstruction became necessary because the old structure had weakened, the court was told.
The bench recorded that the property was private patta land measuring about 1,025 square feet and that the proposed built-up area was about 1,950 square feet. It also noted that the local body had granted building plan approval in September 2018, before the earlier litigation, and that the approval had subsequently been extended.
Court records showed the reconstruction application was submitted on September 3, 2018, with Kalkurichi Village Panchayat approving the building plan the next day. The judges treated that sequence, subsequent Collector-level scrutiny and inspection findings as material to whether the administrative permission complied with the earlier High Court direction requiring the proposal to be considered in accordance with law.
A Revenue Divisional Officer's field inspection confirmed that the prayer hall and the Muthumariamman Temple were separated by approximately 45 metres. The inspection also recorded the absence of objections from people living in the locality.
The court found no material establishing that construction or use of the prayer hall violated any statutory provision. Nor did it find that the Collector's order conflicted with the High Court's directions in the earlier proceedings.
It further noted that Marimuthu was not a resident of Dhayapuram but lived at Pandiyan Nagar, about nine kilometres away. The judges nevertheless considered his challenge on its merits and found that he had not demonstrated illegality, procedural irregularity, arbitrariness or any breach of the court's earlier directions.