Madras High Court
P.Subakaran vs The Commissioner on 29 August, 2019
Author: R.Suresh Kumar
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar
W.P.(MD)No.18690 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 29.08.2019
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
W.P.(MD)No.18690 of 2019
and
W.M.P(MD).No.15066 of 2019
P.Subakaran ...Petitioner
-Vs-
1.The Commissioner,
Municipal Administration,
Ezhilagam, Chepauk,
Chennai.
2.The District Collector,
Theni District, Theni.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Theni District, Theni.
4.The Commissioner,
Bodinayakkanur Municipality,
Bodinayakkanur,
Theni District.
5.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Uthamapalayam,
Theni District.
6.The Thasildar,
Bodinayakkanur,
Theni District.
7.The Inspector of Police,
Bodinayakkanur Town Police Station,
Theni District. ...Respondents
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/12
W.P.(MD)No.18690 of 2019
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to
grant permission on 05.09.2019 to replace the old cement statue
and erect the bronze statue of freedom fighter V.O.Chidambaram
Pillai at Periyandavar Salai, Near old Bus-stand, Bodinayakkanur
Town, Theni District.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.J.Ebenezer Charles
For Respondents : Mr.V.Anand
Government Advocate
ORDER
The prayer sought for in this writ petition is for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to grant permission on 05.09.2019 to replace the old cement statue and erect the bronze statue of freedom fighter V.O.Chidambaram Pillai at Periyandavar Salai, Near old Bus-stand, Bodinayakkanur Town, Theni District.
2.Heard Mr.T.J.Ebenezer Charles, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.V.Anand, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.
3.With the consent of both sides, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. http://www.judis.nic.in 2/12 W.P.(MD)No.18690 of 2019
4.The petitioner's Association called “Pillaimar Aikkiya Sangam”, Bodinayakkanur, Theni District, had been making efforts from 2014 onwards by approaching almost all the respondents herein, for getting necessary permission to replace the cement statue of freedom fighter V.O.Chidambaram Pillai, popularly known as “fg;gNyhl;ba jkpod; t.c.rpjk;guk; gps;is”(Kappalotia Tamilan V.O.Chidamabram Pillai), at Bodinayakkanur, Theni District. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the cement statue of the freedom fighter had already been erected in the public road with the permission of the authority and since it is getting damaged, they wanted to replace it by pucca bronze statue and infact, bronze statue has already been made and only to erect the same, by way of replacing the existing one, they seek permission from the authorities and in this regard, they have been making representation to all these respondents herein.
5.The learned counsel for the petitioner also brought to the notice of this Court that, the permission given by way of resolution of the fourth respondent/Municipality and recommendatory report sent by the respondents 5 and 6, who are the Revenue Divisional Officer and Tahsildar concerned and the only objection raised by the Police people was that, if the petitioner's sangam is permitted to replace the freedom fighter's statue, other communal http://www.judis.nic.in 3/12 W.P.(MD)No.18690 of 2019 Association will seek claim and that will create law and order issue and therefore, on that pretext, the Police people seems to have made objection and therefore, the matter has been placed unanswered, without taking any decision by the authorities, particularly, the second respondent/District Collector as well as the first respondent/Commissioner of Municipal Administration. Therefore, the petitioner has come before this Court with the aforesaid prayer.
6.I have heard Mr.V.Anand, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, who would submit that, the statue of the freedom fighter has already been erected in the public road with the permission of the authorities, since it is the cement statue, the petitioner's Association wanted to replace it by bronze statue and on earlier occasion, without even getting permission, since they made an attempt to erect statue by replacing the same by bronze statue, that attempt was thwarted by the District level authority, including the Police and bronze statue of the freedom fighter is concerned, which is prepared to be erected by the petitioner, has been kept at the Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer and therefore, before giving any permission to the petitioner's Association to replace the cement statue by bronze one, so many other issues had to be looked into by the District http://www.judis.nic.in 4/12 W.P.(MD)No.18690 of 2019 Administration, including the law and order issue and after having considered both, a decision would be taken by the District Administration and based on the recommendatory report, either way, the first respondent/State Government will consider and pass final order thereon.
7.I have considered the said submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.
8.It is an admitted fact that, the freedom fighter, namely, V.O.Chidamparam Pillai, is a renowned freedom fighter, who is the celebrity of Indian people, particularly, Tamil people, as he was the first Tamizhan, who floated the “Suthesy Shipping Company” that is the reason why, he is being called as “fg;gNyhl;ba jkpod; t.c.rpjk;guk; gps;is”(Kappalotiya Tamilan V.O.Chidamabram Pillai). Therefore, erecting the statue of such a great personality/freedom fighter is the welcome move to be appreciated, but, at the same time, the State Government and District Administration cannot be compelled to give permission to the petitioner, as they desired. Without even evaluating the law and order issue and other aspects, such permission cannot be given to the petitioner. In this context, it is to be noted that, the public road, which comes under the http://www.judis.nic.in 5/12 W.P.(MD)No.18690 of 2019 Municipality of Bodinayakkanur, where, the statue is to be replaced, has already been brought to the notice of the Municipality ie., the fourth respondent, who, by resolution, in jPh;khd vz;.8, dated 31.01.2014, passed the following resolution:-
“mYtyf Fwpg;G: nghpahz;lth; neLQ;rhiyapd; gioa NgUe;J epiyak; mUfpy; Vw;fdNt cs;s fg;gNyhl;ba jkpod; t.c.rpjk;guk; gps;is mth;fspd; gioa rpiyapid khw;wp Gjpa ntz;fy rpiyapid epWTtjw;F muR xg;Gjy; ngw Ntz;Lk; vd;w epge;jidAld; efuhl;rpf;F Ml;Nrgizapy;iy vd jPh;khdpf;fyhk;.
(e.f.vz;:5148/2012/vg;1).
jPh;khd vz;:8 mYtyfFwpg;G mDkjpf;fg;gl;lJ.
(xk;)tp.Mh;.godpuh[;
efh;kd;wj;jiyth;
//cz;ik efy;// Mizahsh;
Nghbehaf;fD}h; efuhl;rp”
9.It is further to be noted that, the sixth respondent/Tahsildar vide his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.168/2014/m5, dated 06.07.2014, had sent the following report to the second respondent/District Collector :-
“Nghbehaf;fD}h; efhpy; Nkw;fz;l ,lj;jpy;
t.c.rpjk;guk; gps;isapd; rpiyahdJ 5 3/4 mb
cauj;jpy;> 5X6 mbAs;s gPlj;jpy;
epWtg;gl;Ls;sJ. ,e;j rpiyahdJ kz; kw;Wk;
rpnkz;l;lhy; Mdjhy; jw;NghJ gOjile;J ghJfhg;gw;w epiyapy; cs;sJ. vdNt Nkw;gb kz;rpiyia khw;wp mNj gPlj;jpy; mNj msTs;s t.c.rpjk;guk;gps;is mtu;fspd; ntz;fyr; rpiyapid mikf;f Nghbehaf;fD}h; gps;iskhh; If;fpa rq;fk; rhh;gpy; mDkjp Nfhug;gl;Ls;sJ.
http://www.judis.nic.in 6/12 W.P.(MD)No.18690 of 2019 ,e;j epiyapy; t.c.rpjk;guk;gps;is mth;fspd; jpUTUt ntz;fy rpiyahdJ 5 3/4 mbapy;> 5X6 mbAs;s mNj gPlj;jpy; mikf;f mDkjp NfhUtjhy; me;j mstpw;F Nkyhf rpiy mikaTs;s ,lj;ij mfyg;gLj;jp fl;bl Ntiy VJk; nra;af; $lhJ vd;w epge;jidAld; GJ ntz;fy rpiy mikf;f mDkjp toq;fyhk; vd;gij gzpTld; njhptpj;Jf; nfhs;fpNwd;.
NkYk;> mikf;fg;glTs;s Gjpa ntz;fyr;rpiyahdJ mNj mstpy; (5 ¾ mb cauk;) mNj msTs;s gPlj;jpy; (5/6 mb mfyk;) mikf;fg;gl cs;sjhy; ,J njhlh;ghf ,g;gFjpapy; rl;lk; xOq;F gpur;rid VJk; vo tha;g;gpy;iy vd;gijAk; gzpTld; njhptpj;Jf; nfhs;fpNwd;.
jq;fs; ek;gpf;ifAs;s> tl;lhl;lrpah;> Nghbehaf;fD}h;”
10.On 07.07.2014, the fifth respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer has also sent his recommendatory report to the District Collector, which reads thus:-
“Nghbehaf;fD}h; tl;lk; kw;Wk; efuk;> nghpahz;lth; neLQ;rhiy gioa NgUe;J epiyak; mUfpy; t.c.rpjk;guk; gps;isapd; 5 ¾ mb cs;s kz; rpiy 5X6 mbAs;s gPlj;jpy; epWtg;gl;Ls;sJ vdTk;> ,e;j rpiyahdJ kz; kw;Wk; rpnkz;l;lhy; Mdjhy; jw;NghJ gOjile;J ghJfhg;gw;w epiyapy; cs;sJ vdTk;> ,e;j epiyapy; t.c.rpjk;guk;gps;is mtu;fspd; jpUTUt ntz;fy rpiyahdJ 5 ¾ mbapy;> 5X6 mbAs;s mNj gPlj;jpy; mikf;f mDkjp NfhUtjhy; me;j mstpw;F Nkyhf rpiy mikaTs;s ,lj;ij mfyg;gLj;jp fl;bl Ntiy VJk; nra;af; $lhJ vd;w epge;jidAld; GJ ntz;fy rpiy mikf;f mDkjp toq;fyhk; vd;Wk;> mikf;fg;glTs;s http://www.judis.nic.in 7/12 W.P.(MD)No.18690 of 2019 Gjpa ntz;fyr;rpiyahdJ mNj mstpy; (5 ¾ mb) mNj msT gPlj;jpy; ( 5X6 mb mfyk;) mikf;fg;gl cs;sjhy;> ,J njhlh;ghf ,g;gFjpapy; rl;lk; xOq;F gpur;rid vo tha;g;gpy;iy vd;Wk; njhptpj;Js;shh;.
Nkw;gb rpiy mikg;gJ njhlh;ghf 28.05.2014 md;W tUtha; tl;lhl;rpauhy; fsMa;T Nkw;nfhs;sg;gl;lJ. Ma;tpy; Nghbehaf;fD}h; tl;lk; kw;Wk; efuk;> nghpahz;lth; neLQ;rhiy gioa NgUe;J epiyak; mUfpy; cs;s gOjile;J ghJfhg;gw;w epiyapy; t.c.rpjk;guk; gps;isapd; rpiyia mfw;wp tpl;L GJ ntz;fy rpiy mikf;f mDkjp toq;Ftjhy; ,g;gFjpapy; rl;lk; xOq;F gpur;rid vo tha;g;gpy;iy vdj; njhpatUtjhy;> murpd; mDkjp ngw;W ,r;rpiyia mikf;f ghpe;Jiu nra;ayhk; vd;gij gzpTld; njhptpj;Jf;nfhs;fpNwd;.
jq;fs; ek;gpf;ifAs;s> Xk;/--n[.ghh;j;jPgd;
tUtha; Nfhl;lhl;rpah;
cj;jkghisak;
/c.e.c.g/ Neh;Kf cjtpahsh;”
11.However, the District Police authority ie., the third respondent herein, in his communication, dated 20.02.2015 has sent the following report to the Government :-
“,k;kDtpd; tprhuizapy; t.c.rpjk;gudhh; mth;fspd; kz;rpiyia khw;wp ntz;fy rpiyia epWTtjw;F kDjhuh; mDkjp NfhhpAs;shh;. ,J rk;ke;jkhf ,uz;L gpupTfs; nray;gLfpwJ. xU gpuptpdh; khw;w tpUk;GtjhfTk;> kw;nwhU gphptpdh; Vw;ftpy;iy. rpiy mike;Js;s ,lk; FWfyhd Nghf;Ftuj;jpw;F ,ila +whd ,lk; MFk;. ,J Nghy; kw;w [hjpapdUk; kw;Wk; kjj;jpdUk; rpiyfspd; mikg;ig khw;wk; nra;tjw;Fk;> itg;gjw;Fk; Kaw;rp Nkw;nfhs;thh;fs;. ,jdhy; rl;lk; http://www.judis.nic.in 8/12 W.P.(MD)No.18690 of 2019 xOq;F gpur;rpid Vw;gl tha;g;Gs;sjhy;> ntz;fy rpiy itf;f mDkjp kWf;fg;gLtjhy;> tprhuiz Kbf;fg;gl;lJ vd njhptpf;fg;gl;lJ.”
12.Probably, the said objection raised by the Police people prevailed upon the recommendatory report sent by the Revenue people as well as the resolution passed by the Local authority.
13.Be that as it may, the issue is yet to be decided and the permission sought for by the petitioner is still pending with the State Government and the District Administration.
14.If at all, a new statue is to be erected in a public place or public road, there are so many restrictions and therefore, based on or subject to such restrictions only, permission normally would be given by the Government/competent authority for erection of such statues in public place.
15.The place, in which, now, the petitioner wants to replace the bronze statue for the cement statue of freedom fighter V.O.Chidamparam is also a public road comes within the fourth respondent Municipality limit. However, it is to be noted that, the cement statue has already been erected and therefore, in order to replace the same by bronze statue, the petitioner made these http://www.judis.nic.in 9/12 W.P.(MD)No.18690 of 2019 requests to the authorities and therefore, it cannot be construed as the fresh permission for erection of a new statue in a public place. Therefore, in this context, considering the recommendatory report sent by the Revenue people as well as the resolution passed by the Local authority, the District Administration must take a view, as to whether the replacement can be permitted or not and accordingly, the recommendatory report, either way, has to be made by the District Administration ie., second respondent/District Collector to the Government ie., the first respondent, who, on receipt of the same, can take a pragmatic decision and accordingly, the application of the petitioner can be decided.
16.In that view of the matter, taking into account the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to dispose of this writ petition with the following directions:-
“that the District Administration/second respondent/ District Collector, Theni, is hereby directed to consider the recommendatory reports given by the respondents 5 and 6 in respect of the plea of the petitioner to replace the cement statue of freedom fighter V.O.Chidamparam Pillai at Periyandavar Road, near Old Bus-stand, Bodinayakkanur Municipality and make a comprehensive report, either recommending or otherwise, to the first respondent, within a period http://www.judis.nic.in 10/12 W.P.(MD)No.18690 of 2019 of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such report from the second respondent/District Collector on the issue, referred to above, the first respondent/State Government shall take a decision either to give permission or otherwise to the petitioner to replace the cement statue of V.O.Chidamparam Pillai by bronze statue at the aforesaid place and such order shall be passed by the first respondent, within a period of four weeks, thereafter and whatever decision to be taken by the first respondent shall be communicated to the petitioner.”
17.With these directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
29.08.2019
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
rmk
Note : Issue order copy on 30.08.2019
http://www.judis.nic.in
11/12
W.P.(MD)No.18690 of 2019
R.SURESH KUMAR.J.
rmk
To
1.The Commissioner,
Municipal Administration,
Ezhilagam, Chepauk,
Chennai.
2.The District Collector,
Theni District, Theni.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Theni District, Theni.
4.The Commissioner,
Bodinayakkanur Municipality,
Bodinayakkanur,
Theni District.
5.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Uthamapalayam,
Theni District.
6.The Thasildar,
Bodinayakkanur,
Theni District.
7.The Inspector of Police,
Bodinayakkanur Town Police Station,
Theni District.
W.P.(MD)No.18690 of 2019
29.08.2019
http://www.judis.nic.in
12/12