Madras High Court
A.Tamilarasi vs The District Collector on 17 April, 2025
W.P.(MD) No.7687 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 17.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
W.P.(MD)No.7687 of 2025
1. A.Tamilarasi
2. A.Arulraj ... Petitioners
Vs
1. The District Collector,
O/o.Collectorate,
Madurai.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
O/o.Revenue Divisional Officer,
Madurai.
3. The Commissioner of Police,
O/o.Commissionerate,
Madurai.
4. The Secretary to the Government,
Revenue and Disaster Management Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai.
(R4 is suo motu impleaded vide court order
dated 28.03.2025 in W.P.(MD).No.7687/2025 by VLNJ)
___________
Page 1 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 11:31:25 am )
W.P.(MD) No.7687 of 2025
5. M.Vinnodh Ambedkar
6. R.Kalimuthu
7. M.Muthukumar ... Respondents
(R5 to R7 impleaded vide Court order
dated 17.04.2025 passed in
W.M.P.(MD).Nos.7900, 8198 & 8206 of 2025)
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling
for the records pertaining to the order passed by the first respondent vide
Na.Ka.No.2656620/2024/C1 dated 25.11.2024 and to quash the same as
illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the first respondent to authorize
the petitioners as authorized persons to maintain the statues of
Dr.B.R.Ambedkar which are located in Perungudi Junction and in
AlagarKovil Road near Pandiyan Hotel, Madurai, in consonance with
G.O.Ms.No.248, Rural Development Department, dated 23.11.1998.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Ramanathan
For Respondent Nos.1, 2& 4 : Mr.Ajmal Khan
Additional Advocate General-I
Assisted by
Mr.Shaji Bino,
Additional Government Pleader
For Respondent No.3 : Mr.Karunanidhi
For Respondent No.4 : Mr.C.M.Arumugam
For Respondent No.5 : Mr.A.Raja
For Respondent No.6 : Mr.C.Daniel Dhinakaran
___________
Page 2 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 11:31:25 am )
W.P.(MD) No.7687 of 2025
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, challenging the order passed by the first respondent vide Na.Ka.No.2656620/2024/C1 dated 25.11.2024 and consequently, direct the first respondent to authorize the petitioners as authorized persons to maintain the statues of Dr.B.R.Ambedkar located in Perungudi Junction and in Alagarkovil Road near Pandiyan Hotel, Madurai in consonance with G.O.Ms.No.248, Rural Development Department, dated 23.11.1998.
2. The petitioners are the daughter and son of one Mr.A.R.Ayyan Kalai. They seek to quash the proceedings of the District Collector and consequently, to be granted a right to maintain two statues erected in the Honour of Bharatha Ratna Dr.Beema Rao Ramji Ambedkar (hereinafter referred as Dr.Ambedkar) in Alagarkoil Road and Perungudi Junction in Madurai.
___________ Page 3 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 11:31:25 am ) W.P.(MD) No.7687 of 2025
3. This writ petition relates to two statues, one, erected near Alagrkoil Road, opposite to Pandian hotel and the other Perungudi, near Madurai Airport. Originally both statues were made of cement. For reasons, which are not palatable, both the statues were damaged. This led to agitations by the members of the public, who revere Dr.Ambedkar, Mr.Ayyan Kalai was one such person.
4. In 2012, when the statue was damaged, he immediately approached the District Collector and obtained permission to replace the statue at Perungudi with a Bronze statue. Taking into consideration of the fact that the bronze statue cannot be easily damaged and as Mr.A.R.Ayyan Kalai had expressed his willingness to install the statue, the District Collector had granted permission on 12.09.2012. Similarly for the cement statue situated near Pandian Hotel, Alagarkoil Road, Mr.Ayyan Kalai moved the District Collector again and obtained permission to replace that cement statue also with Bronze statue, on 08.06.2023.
___________ Page 4 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 11:31:25 am ) W.P.(MD) No.7687 of 2025
5. As long as Mr.Ayyan Kalai was alive, there were no issues. He had not only replaced the statue at Perungudi with a bronze one, but he had also been maintaining the same. He is said to have taken all steps to replace the statue at Alagarkoil road, pursuant to the permission obtained in 2023.
6. Mr.Ayyan Kalai, passed away on 31.08.2024. The petitioners claim that he had executed a WILL on 20.09.2023, bequeathing the right to maintain the statue on the petitioners herein.
7. During the life time of Mr.A.R.Ayyan Kalai, he had formed a Committee called ''Gul;rpahsh; lhf;lh;.mk;Ngj;fh; KO cUt ntz;fyrpiy guhkhpg;G FO''. This committee passed a resolution on 13.10.2024, authorizing the Writ Petitioners to maintain the statue. The petitioners claim that they are presently the secretaries of the said ''guhkhpg;G FO''. On the basis of the ''WILL'' and the resolution passed by the Committee, the petitioners approached the District Collector seeking a right to maintain the statues. The District Collector rejected the request of the petitioners. Hence, this writ petition. ___________ Page 5 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 11:31:25 am ) W.P.(MD) No.7687 of 2025
8. Taking note of the fact that the controversy revolves around a person, who was not only the Chairman of the Drafting Committee of the Constitution of India, but had also been conferred with the highest honour that can be bestowed on any individual by this great Nation, I had directed Mr.Shaji Bino, learned Special Government Pleader to get instructions from the District Collector as to why even the request to maintain the statue was refused by her. Mr.Shaji Bino, sought time to get instructions and the matter was listed on 27.03.2025. On that day, Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, the learned Additional Advocate General-I represented that as installation of statues is a sensitive issue, the same cannot be decided at the level of the District Collector, as it would have repercussions across the state, he sought for time to get instructions from the State Government. I accepted the submissions of Mr.Ajmal Khan and adjourned the matter to a date post the budget session of legislative assembly.
9. At that stage, Mr.Ramanathan, made a plea that as 14 th of April was just round the corner and that day being the birth anniversary of the great leader, he requested permission of this Court to make statue ready ___________ Page 6 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 11:31:25 am ) W.P.(MD) No.7687 of 2025 for the celebration. I granted permission to the petitioners to carry out the maintenance works. I made it clear that maintenance of statue is not hereditary right and that, the petitioners shall not insist that any person, who wants to pay obeisance to the leader should get permission/NOC from them prior to doing so. The matter was adjourned.
10. Today, when the writ petition was taken up for hearing, the learned Additional Advocate General has produced written instructions from the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai. It states the maintenance of statue should be in terms of the order passed in G.O.Ms.No.248, Rural Development Department, dated 23.11.1998 and the subsequent Government Orders. It points out that the Government has taken a position, under the 1998 Government Order that those, who install the Statue, have to pay a sum equal to the expenditure incurred to the local body concerned for maintenance of statue. Subsequently, the Government had directed all the local bodies to maintain the existing statues.
___________ Page 7 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 11:31:25 am ) W.P.(MD) No.7687 of 2025
11. The instruction also refers to the judgement of the Supreme Court in I.A.No.10 of 2012 in SLP (Civil) No.8519 of 2006 dated 18.01.2013 directing that the State Government shall not grant permission for installation of statues or construction of any structure in the public roads, pavements side way and other public utility areas. The instruction also refers to the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.23140 of 2014 dated 07.10.2021. The instructions further state that the Government has directed individuals or organisations, who have installed the statues, with permission to pay the cost of maintenance to the local body. But, the Government has not authorised any individual/organisation, who have installed the statutes, as 'authorised persons' to maintain the statutes. Hence, it supports the impugned order.
12. In the meantime, three applications have been filed to implead the persons, who claim to be interested in the maintenance of the statues.
13. I heard Mr.Ramanathan, for the petitioner, Mr.Ajmal Khan, learned Additional Advocate General-I assisted by Mr.Shaji Bino, Special Government Pleader for the State respondents, Mr.Raja, for the ___________ Page 8 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 11:31:25 am ) W.P.(MD) No.7687 of 2025 petitioner in W.M.P.(MD).No.8198 of 2025, Mr.Daniel Dhinakaran, for the petitioner in W.M.P.(MD).No.8206 of 2025 and Mr.C.M.Arumugam, for the petitioner in W.M.P.(MD).No.7900 of 2025.
14. I have carefully considered the submissions on all sides and perused the materials available on record.
15. The narration of the aforesaid facts show that the statue situated at Perungudi near the Madurai Airport was damaged by some miscreants. The cement statue was replaced on the permission granted to Mr.A.R.Ayyan Kalai in the year 2012. Mr.Ayyan Kalai had also taken steps and had unveiled the statue on 09.12.2022. Mr.A.R.Ayyan kalai had undertaken regular maintenance activities for the statues. On the contrary, there is no shred of piece of evidence produced by the impleading petitioners to show that they had associated themselves with Mr.A.R.Ayyan Kaai, during his lifetime to maintain the statue.
16. Mr.A.Raja, relying upon a Biography titled ''Maaveeran Malaichamy'' written by Mr.Inquilab, urges that the Mr.A.R.Ayyan Kalai ___________ Page 9 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 11:31:25 am ) W.P.(MD) No.7687 of 2025 had consciously obtained permission in the year 2012, in his own name, whereas the agitation had been spearheaded by the members belonging to ''Viduthalai Siruthaigal Katchi''. He states that the permission granted to Mr.A.R.Ayyan Kalai in the year 2012 and 2023 should be construed as permission granted to Vi.Si.Ka party. Therefore, no relief should be granted to the writ petitioners. These submissions of Mr.Raja, is echoed by Mr.Daniel Dhinakaran and Mr.C.M.Arumugam.
17. A careful analysis of the submissions made by Mr.Raja, Mr.Daniel Dhinakaran and Mr.C.M.Arumugam leads me to conclude that their fear is the family of Mr.A.R.Ayyan Kalai might claim hereditary right of maintenance of the statues and thereby, prevent the others from offering their respects to the great departed leader.
18. I am afraid that this fear is absolutely unfounded. The statues have not been installed in the private property of Late.A.R.Ayyan Kalai. The statues stand on Government land. The Government had permitted Mr.A.R.Ayyankalai to replace the statues, taking into consideration, the situation, which was prevailing at that time, as well as, accepting the ___________ Page 10 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 11:31:25 am ) W.P.(MD) No.7687 of 2025 request of Mr.A.R.Ayyan Kalai to install a Bronze Statue, which would withstand the vagaries of nature. No right has been granted to Mr.Ayyan Kalai, to bequeath the said right in favour of any person including his children. None can claim, a bequeathing right, when Mr.Ayyankalai himself was a mere licensee to maintain the statues.
19. A perusal of the proceedings of the year 2012 and 2023 indicate that Mr.A.R.Ayyan Kalai was not only permitted to change the statue, but also called upon to maintain the same. It is, at best, a license to maintain. The tall leader Dr.Ambedkar, cannot be confined to the four corners of the request of Mr.Ayyan Kalai or for that matter, to the whims and wishes of any political party. He was, he is and will be beyond any such restrictions. The fear expressed by the petitioners can be addressed by giving appropriate directions in this order. I am not inclined to permit Mr.Raja's client to stake a claim to the statues, on the basis of the alleged contribution said to have been made by Vi.Si.Ka. Party for installation of statue. This is for the following reasons:
i) As pointed out above, no evidence has been produced before this Court to show the entire contribution had been made by any one ___________ Page 11 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 11:31:25 am ) W.P.(MD) No.7687 of 2025 person for the purpose of installation of statue. Mr.Ayyan Kalai might have received funds from several sources. When the public had contributed for installation of the statue, no person or organisation, can claim a right. This not only applied to the statues, but, also on account of the stature of Dr.Ambedkar.
ii) The issues that have been raised by the Mr.A.Raja, Mr.Daniel Dhinakaran and Mr.C.M.Arumugam were not raised, at any point of time, during the lifetime of Mr.A.R.Ayyan Kalai. Post his death, no steps were taken by any of the impleaded parties by approaching the District Collector, seeking permission to maintain the statue. It was the writ petitioners, namely Tamilarasi and Arulraj who had approached the District Collector seeking permission to maintain the statue. If the impleaded parties, were very serious about their intentions, they would have approached the District Collector simultaneously or earlier or before the filing of the writ petition seeking the similar relief as sought for by the writ petitioners. The impleaded parties do not dispute that the statue at Perungudi requires maintenance and that Ayyankalai had secured permission to replace the one at Alagar Kovil Road. They have ___________ Page 12 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 11:31:25 am ) W.P.(MD) No.7687 of 2025 approached this Court only on account of the fear that the petitioners might start claiming a personal right over the statues. I have already held they cannot.
20. Though the petitioners seek a relief that they should be authorised to maintain the statue, when the Government Order only calls upon the individual or organisation, who installed the statue, to pay a sum equal to the expenditure incurred for the installation of the statue for the local body for its maintenance, I cannot hold, the writ petitioners are entitled to be notified as authorised persons to maintain the statues. At the same time, I have to take note of the fact that statues require to be maintained. Though the petitioners seek for a right to maintain the statue, a lesser relief of a licence to maintain the statue can certainly be considered. Had the Government taken the stand that it will ensure the proper maintenance of the statues through the local bodies, the necessity for this Writ Petition itself would not have arisen. In fact, the instructions do not dispute as long as Ayyankalai was alive, he had taken steps to maintain the statues. In the interest of the person, who look up to Bharatha Ratna Dr.Beema Rao Ramji Ambedkar, certain directions have ___________ Page 13 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 11:31:25 am ) W.P.(MD) No.7687 of 2025 to be given balancing the interest of the State, at the same time, considering the interest of the aforesaid class of persons.
21. In the light of the above discussions, I pass the following order:
i) The impugned order dated 25.11.2024 is quashed.
ii) The petitioners, namely, Ms.Tamil Arasi and Mr.Arulraj shall maintain the statue, on the same terms and conditions, as imposed by the District Collector on 12.09.2012 and 08.06.2023 with respect to the statues in Perungudi and Alagar Kovil Road opposite to Pandian Hotel respectively.
iii) The petitioners cannot claim any right, much less, a hereditary right to maintain the statues, for the mere fact that their father had applied for permission to replace the statues.
iv) What has been granted by the first respondent to Mr.A.R.Ayyan Kalai is only a license to maintain statues and by virtue by being children of Mr.A.R.Ayyan Kalai or as members of the maintenance committee, the petitioners will not get superior right than Mr.A.R.Ayyan Kalai itself.
___________ Page 14 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 11:31:25 am ) W.P.(MD) No.7687 of 2025
v) By virtue of the fact that the petitioners are maintaining the statue, they will not be entitled to prevent any person, from paying respects including garlanding the statue or claiming a right to issue NOC for the same purpose to do the aforesaid activity.
vi) In case, the petitioners failed to maintain the statue or if any complaint is lodged with the first respondent/District Collector that the petitioners are abusing their position, as persons maintaining the statue, the District Collector shall immediately act upon the same and take appropriate action including revocation of license granted in and by way of the orders dated 12.09.2012 and 08.06.2023.
22. With the above said observations, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
17.04.2025 (1/2) NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes gvn ___________ Page 15 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 11:31:25 am ) W.P.(MD) No.7687 of 2025 To
1. The District Collector, O/o.Collectorate, Madurai.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o.Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai.
3. The Commissioner of Police, O/o.Commissionerate, Madurai.
4. The Secretary to the Government, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Fort St. George, Chennai.
___________ Page 16 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 11:31:25 am ) W.P.(MD) No.7687 of 2025 V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
gvn W.P.(MD)No.7687 of 2025 Dated : 17.04.2025 1/2 ___________ Page 17 of 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 11:31:25 am )