The bench of Justice M Dhandapani and Justice N Dilip Kumar noted that the apprehension of law and order expressed by the petitioner could not be a ground to interfere with the Collector's order allowing the construction, especially when the field inspection by the appropriate authorities had not disclosed any disputes.

The court thus observed that the peaceful existence of persons professing different faiths cannot be curtailed merely based on unsustainable apprehension.

“The apprehension expressed by the petitioner regarding a possible law and order problem, by itself, cannot be a ground to interfere with an administrative order, particularly when the competent authority has considered the relevant materials and the field inspection report does not disclose any such existing dispute or objection from the local residents. 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 court was hearing a petition filed by G Marimuthu, District Executive Committee Member of the Hindu Munnani, a Hindu social organisation.

The petitioner submitted that a Muthumariamman Temple existed at Dhayapuram Village and a Church was being constructed in close proximity to the temple without obtaining prior permission from the District Collector as required under Rule 4(3) of the Tamil Nadu Building Rules 1997.

The petitioner had earlier challenged the construction, and the court had directed the District Administration to lock and seal the premises. The court had also granted liberty to the church to submit an application to the District Collector seeking permission for putting up a prayer hall. The court had also asked the District Collector to consider the application in accordance with law and order.

The petitioner argued that even after the court order, the Collector did not consider the application as per law, as an opportunity was not given to the local residents or others who may be affected by the construction. The petitioner argued that the construction of a church near the temple would cause possible law and order problems.

The church, on the other hand, argued that the construction was not new and a prayer hall had already existed in the area for around 25 years. It was submitted that the present proposal was only to reconstruct the existing building as the old structure had become weak and required reconstruction. It was also submitted that the petitioner was not a resident of the area.

The authorities also submitted that the order permitting the construction was passed after field inspection during which the residents informed that a prayer hall already existed in the place for 25 years and there was no objection to the prayer hall. Thus, the authorities submitted that there was no basis for the apprehension that there would be a law and order problem.

The court thus held that there was no material to show that construction of the hall or its usage would be in violation of any statutory provision or that the order was contrary to the earlier directions issued by the court. Thus, the court was not inclined to interfere with the order of the District Collector.

Thus, finding no valid ground to interfere with the order, the court dismissed the plea.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Karthikeya Venkitachalapathy

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. M. Mahaboob Athiff, Special Government Pleader, Mr. R. Karunanidhi

Case Title: G Marimuthu v The District Collector and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 429

Case No: WP (MD) No 14181 of 2021