The Madras High Court in the case K Gopinath v District Collector observed and has dismissed the man’s review plea moved against an earlier decision wherein the plea moved by him was dismissed challenging the construction of a mosque near a temple.
The bench comprising of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy in the case observed that an appeal could not be disguised as a review and that the jurisdiction of the court in the review was very narrow and could be exercised only if there was an apparent error.
The court stated that no new grounds are set up in review and the review cannot be entertained as an appeal in disguise. Thus, the jurisdiction of the said court in review is in a narrow compass and can be exercised only upon an error apparent on the face of the record and there being no error apparent on the face of the record.
In the present case, the petitioner, Gopinath had initially filed the writ plea wherein seeking the directions to the District Collector, Corporation Commissioner and Commissioner of Police to remove an alleged unauthorised construction put up by one Rabbaniya Arabic College.
It has been alleged by the Gopinath that the lodge had been used as Rabbaniya Arabic College for the past four years and that attempts were being made to convert the Arabic College to a mosque for offering prayers there.
He also alleged before the court that the construction was going on without prior approval from the authorities and no action had been taken on his representation made to the authorities, highlighting the issue.
Further, the petitioner alleged that Subbaiah Mutt Sivan Temple was situated nearby and if the college was converted into a mosque, then there would be public nuisance.
Earlier, the coordinate bench dismissed the petition noting that Gopinath had no locus standi to file the petition as he was not a resident of the area.
It has also been noted by the said court that the petitioner had failed to show how he would be prejudiced by the act of converting the college into a mosque.
The bench in the case observed and has highlighted that the Constitution of India supported and encouraged religious harmony in India and when such religious harmony existed in the country, there was no such substance in the apprehension that riots may occur if the college was converted into a mosque.
The court while considering the facts and circumstances stated that this court finds no error in the coordinate bench’s earlier decision and no new grounds had been raised. Accordingly, the court dismissed the present plea. The counsel, Advocate Mr. M.Arun for M/s.Deepan Uday appeared for the applicant.
