APHC010079052024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] THURSDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 4416/2024 Between: 1. VORUGANTI SURIBABU, S/O SUBBARAO, AGED 59 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 10-522, ESWAR NAGAR, SATTAMATALLI STREET, RAMANAYAPETA, KAKINADA RURAL, KAKINADA. 2. KETHA SRINIVASA RAO,, S/O RAMULU, AGED 48 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 10-517/2, ESWAR NAGAR, SATTAMATALLI STREET, RAMANAYAPETA, KAKINADA RURAL, KAKINADA. 3. MEDABALIMI APPA RAO,, S/O KASULAYYA, AGED 67 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 10-505/1, ESWAR NAGAR, SATTAMATALLI STREET, RAMANAYAPETA, KAKINADA RURAL, KAKINADA. 4. B.V.V.KUMAR,, S/O LATE BHASKARA RAO, AGED 56 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 10-519/1, ESWAR NAGAR, SATTAMATALLI STREET, RAMANAYAPETA, KAKINADA RURAL, KAKINADA. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, VIJAYAWADA. Page 2 of 15 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KAKINADA DISTRICT. KAKINADA. 4. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, KAKINADA DISTRICT. KAKINADA. 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KAKINADA DISTRICT. KAKINADA. 6. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SARPAVARAM POLICE STATION, KAKINADA, KAKINADA DISTRICT. 7. THE GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, RAMANAYAPETAVILLAGE, KAKINADA RURAL MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT. 8. THE KAKINADA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUDA, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, OFFICE AT NFCL ROAD, KAKINADA. 9. D WILLIAM, S/O, AGED UNKNOWN. PASTOR, PARISUDDA DEVUDI MANDIRAM, R/O ESHWAR NAGAR, RAMANAYAPETA VILLAGE, KAKINADA RURAL MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 3 rd respondent/District Collector in issuing proceedings vide e- file.No.315801/2020-A3, dated 12/01/2024 permitting the running of religious place of public worship in a residential locality in a extent of 262.53 sq.yds in D.No. 10-500, Eeswar Nagar, Ramanayyapeta Village, Kakinada Rural Mandal, Kakinada District as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently set aside the proceedings of the 3rdrespondent/District Collector vide e-file.No.315801/2020-A3, dated 12/01/2024 by making it clear that, the 3rd respondent/District Collector shall not issue permission for running a church, in residential locality when the local population is protesting and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the proceedings of the 3 rd respondent/District Collector vide e-file.No.315801/2020-A3,dated 12/01/2024 consequently directingthe respondents to restrain the activities/construction of the building in D.No.10-500, Eeswar Nagar, Ramanayyapeta Village, Kakinada Rural Mandal, Kakinada District and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order passed in IA.No.1/2024 in WP.No.4416/2024 dated 20.02.2024 and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the Interim Order dated 20-02-2024 in IA.No.1/2024 in W.P.No.4416/2024 and dismiss the Writ Petition in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. PONNADA SREE VYAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME (AP) 2. R K ACARYULU SC For RJY,KKD,ELR,AMP UDA 3. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) 4. Yarraguntla.KoteswaraRao,Standing Counsel For Zilla PrajaParishads,MandalPraja Parishads and Gra 5. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV (AP) 6. O M R LAW FIRM Date on which order was reserved : 17.03.2026 Date on which order is pronounced : 16.04.2026 Date on which the order is uploaded : 16.04.2026 The Court made the following: ORDER Heard Sri K.S.Murthy, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Ponnada Sree Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri P.Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development for the respondents 1, 2 & 4; Ms.Usha, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the 3rdrespondent, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for the respondents 5 & 6, Sri Chaitanya, learned counsel representing Sri Y.Koteswara Rao, learned standing counsel for the 7th respondent and Sri R.N.V.S.K. Acharyulu, learned standing counsel for the 8th respondent and Sri O.Manoher Reddy, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel for the 9th respondent. 2. Impugning the proceedings vide e-file No.315801/2020-A3, dated 12.01.2024 (Ex.P1), the petitioners file the above writ petition. 3. Averments, in brief, in the affidavit and the reply affidavit as follows: a) One V.Nageswara Rao and others filed W.P.No.18346 of 2020 assailing the permission granted to the 9th respondent for the construction of a church in the premises bearing D.No.10-500, Eswar Nagar, Ramanayyapeta, Kakinada. The said writ petition was disposed of on 23.03.2021, directing the District Collector to conduct an enquiry by giving opportunity to both parties in 8 weeks. The District Collector conducted an enquiry in May, 2021. The petitioners and others raised objections opposing the grant of permission to the 9th respondent. The District Collector addressed a letter to the District Panchayat Officer, who, in turn, addressed a letter to the Godavari Urban Development Authority (GUDA) seeking clarification regarding permission for a religious place of public worship. b) The District Panchayat Officer, Kakinada, issued proceedings vide e-file No.315801/2020-A3, dated 29.11.2022. Assailing the same, W.P.No.39590 of 2022 was filed. Thereafter, the District Collector issued proceedings vide e-file No.315801/2020-A3, dated 23.12.2022. Assailing the same, W.P.No.41945 of 2022 was filed, and the same was allowed on 16.08.2023 and remitted the matter. W.P.No.39590 of 2022 was closed by virtue of the order in W.P.No.41945 of 2022. After remand, the 3rd respondent, District Collector, issued notices to all the residents in the colony to attend for an enquiry on 26.10.2023. The petitioners and others attended the office of the 3rd respondent and submitted their objections. The proceedings impugned were issued by the 3rd respondent without considering the objections. In fact, the procedure adopted by the 3rd respondent, the District Collector, is unjust and arbitrary. No Grama Sabha was also conducted. 4. a) Counter affidavit was filed by the 3rd respondent. It was contended, interalia that the 9th respondent constructed a tiled house in the year 1998 at D.No.10-500 in S.No.291/2, Plot No.108, Eswar Nagar, Ramanayyapeta Gram Panchayat. He made an application for the construction of an RCC Building for the Christian community hall. The permission was granted by the local authority on 15.08.2014 vide B.L.R.No.106/2014-15. The construction was completed. The 9th respondent made an application dated 17.12.2019 for the construction of the first floor over the existing ground floor, and the same was granted vide B.A.B.No.213/2019, dated 26.12.2019, by the 7th respondent, Gram Panchayat. b) The 9th respondent, by letter dated 14.04.2020, sought approval for the removal of the old Christian community hall and for the construction of a new hall in its place, proposing a G+2 structure. The Gram Panchayat has conducted a public opinion survey (Grama Sabha). Out of the total number of persons who attended the meeting, 202 members gave their consent. One V.Nageswara Rao and 72 others objected for construction of the church. The 9th respondent gave an undertaking on a 100 rupee bond paper to construct a stilt floor for parking and to provide sound proof arrangement for controlling sounds during prayers. c) The Gram Panchayat passed a resolution No.15, dated 20.06.2020 and requested the 3rd respondent, District Collector, to accord necessary permission to run the church. Upon scrutiny of the entire record, the 3rd respondent accorded sanction vide e-file No.315801/2020-A3, dated 18.08.2020, after referring to the report of the District Panchayat Officer etc. Thereafter, the subsequent order dated 12.01.2024 was issued after considering the recommendations of the Panchayat Secretary, Superintendent of Police, Kakinada and the District Panchayat Officer, Kakinada. The proceedings challenged were issued in compliance with the direction in W.P.No.41945 of 2022 dated 16.08.2023. The Superintendent of Police, Kakinada District, also submitted his enquiry report vide Letter C.No.133/G-2/2022, dated 29.12.2023. The 9th respondent made an application for the construction of a Christian community hall only. Page 7 of 15 5. A reply affidavit was filed to the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent. It was contended that the 3rd respondent failed to consider Rule 54 (9) (c) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings Rules, 2017 (for short “Buildings Rules”). The Urban Development Authority is competent to grant permission to the buildings for religious worship as per Rule 3 (23) (b) read with Rule 2 (17) (b)of the Buildings Rules. The 9th respondent obtained permission for the construction of a residential building. The petitioners are not aware of the enquiry conducted by the Superintendent of Police. The information received under Right to Information vide RTI No.23/2025, dated 07.10.2025, no Grama Sabha was conducted during April, 2022 to August, 2022. 6. a) A separate counter affidavit was filed by the 9th respondent. It was contended, inter alia, that he made an application to the Gram Panchayat for the construction of a church. The Gram Panchayat granted permission in August, 2020. Thereafter, some of the villagers vide W.P.No.18346 of 2020 and the same was disposed of on 23.03.2021. It was further contended about the filing of W.P.Nos.39590 and 41945 of 2022 and the orders passed therein. b) The GUDA addressed a letter to the District Panchayat Officer in e-Office No.648461/2021/JA(GUDA), dated 27.05.2021, wherein it was mentioned that, as per the regulations of the Kakinada Master Plan, a community centre and religious structure are permissible in a residential zone. Due to the delegation of powers issued to the Panchayat Secretary, the Panchayat Secretaries are empowered to approve residential buildings up to 300 sq. meters plot area and 10 meters height (excluding stilt). The GUDA is the competent authority to issue permission to the religious building and community hall above 300 sq. meters. The plot size of the 9th respondent is 262.53 sq. meters. c) The allegations about the huge congregation and loudspeakers being used at high decibels were denied. Few people are attending the church on Sunday between 9.00 to 11.00 a.m. No loudspeakers are used. He employed a security person to ensure orderly parking and no convenience to the general public. The entire room is air-conditioned and soundproof, and the prayers in the hall are not even audible to the people outside the building. The District Collector considered all these aspects and granted permission. 7. A reply affidavit was filed to the counter affidavit filed by the 9th respondent. It was contended about the jurisdiction of the Gram Panchayat and the District Collector. 8. Sri K.S.Murthy, learned senior counsel, while reiterating the contentions as per the averments in the writ affidavit and reply affidavit, would further submit that the 3rd respondent failed to consider the objections of the petitioners. According to learned senior counsel, one has to make an application to the Gram Panchayat and the Gram Panchayat, in turn, will forward the same to the District Collector. If the District Collector is satisfied, he will, in turn, direct the Gram Panchayat to accord permission. However, such a procedure was not adhered to. 9. Sri O.Manoher Reddy, learned senior counsel, on the other hand, would submit that the objections of the petitioners were considered and thereafter permission was accorded. The 3rd respondent adhered to the procedure. Page 9 of 15 10. Now, the point for consideration is: Whether the proceedings impugned vide e-file No.315801/2020-A3, dated 12.01.2024 (Ex.P1), are legally sustainable? 11. Before delving into the rival contentions, this Court deems it appropriate to extract the prayer in the writ petition, which reads thus: “For the reasons submitted above, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court, in the interest of justice, be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 3rd respondent/District Collector in issuing proceedings vide e-file No.315801/2020-A3 dated 12.01.2024 permitting the running of religious place of public worship in a residential locality in a extent of 262.53 sq.yds in D.No.10-500, Eeswar Nagar, Ramanayyapeta Village, Kakinada Rural Mandal, Kakinada District as illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently set aside the proceedings of the 3rd respondent/District Collector vide e-file No.315801/2020-A3 dated 12.01.2024 making it clear that the 3rd respondent/District Collector shall not issue permission for running a church, in residential locality when the local population is protesting and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case”. 12. The petitioners are requesting the Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus and to set aside the proceedings of the 3rd respondent, District Collector. The District Collector issued proceedings impugned in the writ petition, while exercising the jurisdiction vested with the authority under the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Land Development (Layout and building) Rules, 2002 (for short “Rules 2002”). As seen from the writ affidavit, the grounds set out are: i) Permission was accorded by the District Collector without considering the objections of the petitioners and solely relying upon the report of the Superintendent of Police, Kakinada; ii) No peace committee meeting was held;’ iii) Petitioners were asked to sign some papers stating that writ petitions are pending. iv) The report of the Superintendent of Police cannot be a basis for granting permission; v) The District Collector accorded permission in violation of orders passed in W.P.No.41945 of 2022; vi) The 9th respondent sought permission for the construction of a residential house from the Gram Panchayat and for using the room for a religious place; no permission was obtained from the 8th respondent, as contemplated. vii) No Grama Sabha was conducted. 13. In the reply affidavit and written arguments, the petitioners developed their case and pleaded that the A.P. Buildings Rules, 2017 and the competency of the District Collector. 14. Having challenged the proceedings issued by the authority while exercising the jurisdiction under the Rules referred to supra, the petitioners should have asked for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari. The petitioners should have raised all the grounds in the writ affidavit itself, enabling the respondents to meet their contentions. This Court in Mandala Rajeshwari Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others 1 , observed about the growing pattern of filing writ petitions seeking writ of Mandamus, while challenging the quasi-judicial orders passed by the authority and held thus: “27. …… The underlying difference between a writ of mandamus and Certiorari was almost ignored. A writ of mandamus is a command to act and to compel the performance of duty. Whereas, a writ of certiorari is a corrective and supervisory will be issued to quash the illegal orders already passed …” 15. Having challenged the order passed by the 3rd respondent, District Collector, as noted supra, the petitioners’ main grievance is non- consideration of their explanations/representations; the conduct of Grama Sabha; acting upon the report of the Superintendent of Police etc. However, in the reply affidavit and written arguments, the petitioners highlighted that the permission granted by the District Collector is violative of the A.P. Building Rules, 2017. 16. The first round of litigation culminated in the order dated 23.03.2021 in W.P.No.18346 of 2020, whereby the permission granted by the District Collector was set aside. The Court observed thus: “The rationale behind the Rule is clear. It is to ensure that the District Collector should assess the law and order situation etc., as the head of the District Administration and thereafter gives the approval. In the case on hand, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the proceedings do not disclose any such application of mind. The representations submitted by the petitioners are not considered. In the opinion of this Court, the 1 2026 SCC OnLine AP 626 issues raised should have been considered by the Collector.” (emphasis is added) 17. The second round of litigation culminated in the order dated 16.08.2023 in W.P.No.41945 of 2022. In Paragraph-10 of the order, it was observed thus: “This Court noticed that, the impugned proceedings dated 23.12.2022 are not as per the directions of this Court passed in W.P.No.18346 of 2020, as such, the same is unsustainable and liable to be set aside …” Having observed so, the proceedings were set aside and it was ordered that the District Collector once again reconsider the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders. 18. Thereafter, the proceedings impugned in this writ petition were issued by the 3rd respondent. The proceeding impugned, runs into six pages. Up to 4½ pages, the authority extracted earlier litigation and the orders therein, objections of the petitioners, as well as the reply by the 9th respondent. In Page No.5 of the proceedings, the authority considered the report of the Superintendent of Police, Kakinada and eventually, the authority granted permission subject to four conditions. 19. Those four conditions mentioned are analogous to the undertaking offered by the 9th respondent. This Court is conscious that while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court will not sit as an appellate authority or substitute its opinion. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ranjeet Baburao Nimbalkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors 2 and W.B. Central School Service 2 2025 SCC Online SC 2855 Commission Vs. Abdul Halim3. Judicial review is strictly confined to examining the legality of the decision-making process to ensure it is not tainted by mala fides, extraneous considerations, or patent unreasonableness. Interference is warranted only to correct fundamental infirmities and not to re-evaluate the merits of the administrative choice. 20. Whether the authority applied its mind to the order in the first writ petition and Rule 26 of the Rules? 21. The proviso to Rule 26 of the Rules 2002, which mandates permission from the District Collector, was added by G.O.Ms.No.376, dated 29.11.2012. The proviso reads thus: “"No site shall be used for the construction of a building intended for public worship or religious purpose without the prior approval of the District Collector 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." 22. A careful perusal of the section extracted supra, would manifest that the prior permission of the District Collector is mandatory. The District Collector may refuse to grant such permission if the construction of the building is likely to endanger the public peace and order, of course, after affording an opportunity to the applicant. 23. A plain reading of the provision would discern that the authority, in the first place, shall consider, whether the construction of the building is likely to endanger the public peace or order. The authority shall 3 (2019) 18 SCC 39 record in the order regarding the public peace and order, which, in the considered opinion of this Court, is sine qua non for the grant of permission. (emphasis is mine) 24. The proceedings impugned do not indicate primary consideration for the grant of permission i.e. endanger to public peace and order. The report of the Superintendent of Police referred to a Peace Committee. However, no material is placed before this Court as to the formation of the peace committee and who the members are in the said peace committee and the validity or legal status of the said committee. The proceedings impugned, in the considered opinion of this Court, the authority proceeded or swayed away with the undertaking offered by the 9th respondent about engaging a private security guard and conducting prayers 2 hours on Friday and 2 hours on Saturday etc. 25. Whether such an undertaking would be feasible or not, the authority failed to consider. Indeed, the authority failed to consider the very crucial aspect. In the considered opinion of this Court, the authority having extracted the order in the writ petition conveniently ignored to consider the same i.e. Public peace and order. The authority should have considered that aspect. The authority shall record its subject to satisfaction on that aspect, which is crucial. However, the proceedings impugned do not indicate anything in that regard. The report of the police may help the authority in giving the recording of its findings, either to grant to reject the permission. However, a mere extract of the report in the proceedings is not sufficient. Like that, the undertaking offered by the 9th respect, per se, shall not be the basis for the grant of permission by making the same as conditions. The authority shall consider the practicability of such an undertaking. In essence, the authority shall record its subjective satisfaction, keeping in mind the public peace and order, while granting or rejecting the permission. However, the same is lacking in the proceedings impugned. 26. About conducting Grama Sabha, though the petitioners contended that no Grama Sabha was conducted, the original record produced by the Gram Panchayat would reveal that a Grama Sabha was conducted on 15.06.2020. In fact, the material produced before this Court would disclose that prayers were being offered in the premises bearing D.No.10-500, since 1998. 27. Given the discussion supra, the proceedings vide e-file No.315801/2020-A3, dated 12.01.2024 (Ex.P1), are hereby set aside. The 3rd respondent shall pass orders keeping in view the proviso to Rule 26 of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Land Development (Layout and building) Rules, 2002 and especially the aspect, if the permission is granted, whether there is any likelihood of endangering the public peace and order in that locality. The authority shall consider the said aspect and pass a reasoned order as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. 28. With the above observations and directions, the Writ Petition is Allowed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI PVD