APHC010134792026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 7202/2026 Between: 1. VANGALAPUDI VIJAY KUMAR, S/O V. TATA RAO AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC PASTOR, R/O 1-22-007, CHANDRASHEKAR COLONY, METTACURU, YANAM, INDIA - 533 464. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. - 522237. 2. THE GRAM PANCHAYAT OF MANJERU, MANJERU VILLAGE, KAJULURU MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT. REP BY ITS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY. - 533468. 3. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, MANJERU GRAM PANCHAYAT, KAJULURU MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. - 533468. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KAKINADA DISTRICT, KAKINADA. - 533001. ...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 p. 2 pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of Respondents Nos.2 and 3 herein in issuing notice vide Rc.No.02/Church/2026-27 dated 09.03.2026 directing the Petitioner herein to herein to stop conducting prayers without obtaining permission from the Respondent No.2- Gram Panchayat as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India and without jurisdiction and Consequently set aside the notice issued vide Rc.No.02/Churc h/2026- 27 dated 09.03.2026 by Respondent Nos.2 and 3 and further direct the Respondents not to interfere with religious activities in the subject church and pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 may be pleased to suspend the operation of Rc.No.02/Church/2026-27 dated 09.03.2026 by Respondent Nos.2 and 3 and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. AJAY KUMAR KANAPARTHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ::ORDER :: Impugning the notice issued vide Rc.No.02/Church/2026-27, dated 09.03.2026 (Ex.P1), the above writ petition was filed. 2. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Kanaparthi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, appeared for respondent No.1, Sri Y. Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel, appeared for respondents 2 & 3 and Ms. Usha, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, appeared for respondent No.4. Page 3 of 7 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, in pursuance of the Gift Deed dated 01.09.1983 (Ex.P5), a church was constructed at Manjeru, Kajuluru, Kakinada. Respondent No.2 assigned D.No.5-149 to the church. The Panchayat Secretary of respondent No.2 issued a show-cause notice (Ex.P2), for which the petitioner submitted an explanation vide Ex.P3. Without considering the explanation and providing an opportunity of hearing, the Panchayat Secretary of respondent No.2 issued the Ex.P1-notice impugned in the writ petition. Learned counsel would also submit that the Secretary has no jurisdiction to issue Ex.P1 notice impugned in the writ petition. No provision of law was mentioned in Ex.P1. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of Paul Thankom v. the State of Tamil Nadu in WP.(MD).No.10782 of 2006, dated 14.08.2012. 4. Sri Chaitanya, learned counsel appearing for Gram Panchayat, would fairly submit that the notice impugned in the writ petition does not contain the provision of law. He would also submit that the Panchayat Secretary of respondent No.2 failed to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and consider the relevant aspects. He would also submit that Ex.P1 does not stand the legal scrutiny. 5. In Paul Thankom’s case, it was observed as follows: “7.Material on record shows that the residential place of the petitioner is being used for conducting prayers. It is also admitted by the petitioner that while practising Christianity, “Pentecost”, the petitioner and her family members and others in and around her house, assemble in her house, for conducting prayers. The objection of the respondents is that if such dwelling house has to be transformed into a place of worship for the people of the locality to assemble, then there must be a prior permission. 8. In the opinion of this Court, there is no need to get prior permission form any authority for assembling and conducting prayers in p. 4 a dwelling place. However, if there is any nuisance caused due to noise pollution or for any other bona fide reasons, it is always open to the authorities to take necessary action under the provisions of the relevant statutes. But before resorting to any action, the authorities on the basis of concrete evidence, should arrive at a subjective satisfaction that there exists infringement of a right of others, under Part III of the Constitution of India to enforce public order. Frivolous complaints to restrict freedom to practice and profess any form of religion should not entertained, as it would be affecting the constitutional right of a person. No body has a right to affect the religious practice of a person. Reasonable restrictions, can be imposed only in cases, falling under “public order or morality and health and rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India. So long as the petitioner or the members of her family and others do not indulge in any activity forbidden under law, or their actions are contrary to public order, morality and health (2) other provisions of Par III of the Constitutions; (3) any law (a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial or political or other secular activity, there cannot be interference with a right to practice and profess any religion. Conducting prayers collectively by the members belonging to a particular sect of a religion cannot be restricted as it would amounting to interfering with their constitutional right to practice and propagate religion of their choice. This Court is not inclined to grant any blanket direction in the nature of mandamus as prayed for, and holds that it is always open to the official respondents to take appreciate action against the petitioner and others, if there are strong and credible materials available against them, to arrive at a conclusion that they have indulged in any activity forbidden by law, as explained in the judgments stated supra. 9. Nobody shuns a doctor, or staff or even an employee, who clear up a patient, in a hospital, on the grounds of caste, creed or religion. Differences though exist, nobody would ever think of it. Blood transfused in a hospital is not segregated on the basis of caste, creed p. 5 or religion. Nor the person who requires blood, would ever demand blood only from a person belonging to his case, community, creed or religion. If for his survival and existence a person can consciously believe and accept that all are equal, irrespective of case, creed, community or religion, they why this hatred and division. Organs are transplanted, Blood and body have no religion or case. When the blood and organs of a Hindu can save a Muslim or vice versa or even a Christian then why this intolerance. Is there not a similarity in 'Om', “Amen” and “Ameen?”. All religions aim at the same destination. Forms and practices may differ. One should not forget that our glorious constitution enshrines, secularism, fraternity and equality. Unity in diversity is our strength.” 6. In the case at hand, according to the petitioner, a church was constructed in 1983. The villagers made a complaint about the inconvenience caused while conducting prayers in the church. The Panchayat Secretary issued notice Ex.P2, directing the petitioner to produce the documents regarding permissions. The petitioner submitted an explanation vide Ex.P3. 7. A perusal of Ex.P1, as rightly pointed out by both the learned counsel, does not contain any provision of law. 8. The proviso to Rule 26 of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Land Development (Layout and Building) Rules, 2002, was incorporated by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.376 PR&RD (Pts.IV) Department, dated 29.11.2012, regarding the construction of a building intended for public purposes or any purposes without getting approval from the Collector. 9. Thus, the authority while issuing the notice impugned in the writ petition, in the considered opinion of this Court, ought to have mentioned the provision of law tracing the jurisdiction. Hence, the notice impugned in the writ petition is liable to be set aside. Page 6 of 7 10. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is allowed. The notice issued vide Rc.No.02/Church/2026-27, dated 09.03.2026 (Ex.P1) is hereby set aside. The learned Secretary of respondent No.2 shall consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner vide Ex.P3 and pass a reasoned order, strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and the Rules made there under, as expeditiously as possible, by providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 13.03.2026 TVN p. 7 173 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 7202 of 2026 Date: 13.03.2026 TVN