Madras High Court
)The District Collector vs N.E.Rajasudhan on 25 April, 2016
Bench: S.Manikumar, S.S.Sundar
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 25.04.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
Writ Appeal(MD)No.547 of 2016
and
C.M.P(MD)No.3915 of 2016
1)The District Collector,
Madurai District.
2)The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Madurai.
3)The Superintendent of Police,
Madurai District.
4)The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Samayanallur, Madurai District.
5)The Inspector of Police,
Alanganallur Police Station,
Madurai District. .... Appellants
vs.
N.E.Rajasudhan,
President,
Puthiya Neethi Katchi,
Pillaimar Uravinmurai Sangam,
V.O.C.Nagar, 15B, Periyasoorseri,
Mettupatti Post, Alanganallur Via,
Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District. .... Respondent
Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order made
in W.P(MD)No.15151 of 2012, dated 19.12.2012.
!For Appellants : Mr.D.Muruganandam,
Additional Government Pleader
^For Respondent : Mr.P.S.Sundaram
:JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by Mr.Justice S.MANIKUMAR) Installation of a statue of V.O.Chidambaranar, a National Leader, in a patta land, belonging to a Uravinmurai Sangam, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District, is opposed by the appellants, on the grounds that there would be a communal clash in the village, and hence not advisable, to erect a statue. G.O.No.248, Rural Development Department, dated 23.11.1998, is also invoked, to contend that permission from the Government is required.
2.Placing reliance on a judgment of this Court in Srivilliputhoor Saiva Vellalar Sangam vs. The District Collector (W.P(MD)No.8935 of 2012, dated 29.08.2012), the Writ Court directed, unveiling of the statue of the National Leader V.O.Chidambaram(shortly V.O.C) at V.O.C Nagar, 15B, Periyasoorseri, Mettupatti Post, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District.
3.Directions issued are assailed, on the grounds inter alia that the Writ Court has failed to see that erection of V.O.C statue would steer community based violence, resulting in loss of peace and security in the area. Added further, the appellants have submitted that the land, in which, the statue is proposed to be unveiled, measuring 3 cents, is not protected or surrounded by a compound wall and in close proximity, a statue of Dr.Ambedkar is located, within 90 meters. According to the appellants, if the statue is located in ''place open public view'' in close proximity, with the statue of Dr.Ambedkar, there is a likelihood of breach of peace.
4.It is also the contention of the appellants that the area, in which, statue of V.O.C is proposed to be unveiled, is occupied predominantly by people belonging to scheduled caste community. The area is hyper sensitive. Purport of G.O.No.248, Rural Development Department, dated 23.11.1998, has not been properly considered by the Writ Court. Instances have been cited, regarding registration of criminal cases between different groups.
5.Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellants made submissions on the above aspects and invited the attention of this Court, to the interim order made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Union of India vs. State of Gujarat and others (SLP(Civil)No.8519/2006, dated 18.01.2013) Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
6.Before adverting to the submissions, this Court deems it fit to consider some of the Government orders, issued in the matter of installation of statues. G.O.Ms.No.186, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 21.09.1998, is extracted hereunder:-
'' 5iyf? FWWj? k?W. guhkOj?
----------------------------------------------------
efuh 5 F)thf. (k) Foi) tHuf? (e.F.5) Jiw
murhiz (Fiy) v8 186 eh? : 21.9.1998
go-f :
muR brayhs) bghJ (r l. k?W. xGuF) Jiw ne)Kf foj v8 501/r(k) x 98-14, eh? 8.7.98 Miz i6g6 6U.vx.nkhf? jiyikyhd ca)k l-FG ghJfh>G?yhk? gy Xluf ? FWt>g L?s 5iyf?
5ij-f>gLtJ tF> fytuufS-F t tF-/wJ vd R o-fh o G? tU. g&Jiufis br?J?sJ.
1.murhufnkh m?yJ j>g lt)fnsh v&j jiytU-F. 5iy FWWj? TlhJ
2.V?fdnt FWt>g L?s 5iyf? rahd Kiw? ghJfh-f>gl nt8L..
3.Ko&jh? V?fdnt FWt>g l 5iyfis ghJfh>ghd XlufS-F bfh8L br?yyh..
2. nkny F(>G l g&Jiufis g` Oj muR mt?iw V?W j?eh o? c?s midOJ c?sh 5 mik>fS-F. G? tU. m(Wiwf? tHu/ Miz bt L/wJ.
1.murhufnkh m?yJ j>g l FWtdufnsh v&j jiytU-F. 5iy FWWj? TlhJ.
2.V?fdnt FWt>g L?s 5iyf? rahd Kiw? ghJfh-f>gl nt8L..
3.V?fdnt FWt>g l 5iyf? `)Fiyahk? XU-f m=5iyfis ghJfh>gd XlufS-F bfh8L br?W 6U.gW. FWWtJ njit vd fUj>g lh? XJ F(OJ mu5l. Miz bg?w G? kh?( mik-fyh..
3. nk?go Mizia midOJ c?sh 5 mik>fS-F. bja>gLOJkhW efuh 5 F)thf Miza) k?W. ng%uh 5f? Xa-Fe) M/nah) nf ^- bfh?s>gL/?wd). (MSe? Miz>go) vx. khy6 muR brayhs)''
7.The abovesaid G.O has been issued, following certain recommendations made by the High Level Committee, chaired by Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.Mohan, inter alia, stating that no statue has to be installed for any Leader.
8.Government have issued G.O(Rt)No.22, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (M.A.S) Department, dated 20.11.1998, and it reads as follows:-
''G.O.(Rt) No.221, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (M.A.S) Department, Date : 20.11.98 Read with
1.G.O.(Rt) No.1711, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department dated 26.10.79.
2.G.O.(Rt) No.193, Municipal Admn. and Water Supply Department dated 23.8.90.
3.G.O.(Rt) No.188, Municipal Admn. and Water Supply Department, dated 21.9.98.
ORDER In the Government Order read first above, instructions had been issued to the local bodies regarding the payment of the amount required for the maintenance of the statue while erecting statues within the limits of the Urban Local Areas. In the order read secondly, orders had been issued regarding the necessity to make the statue with bronze. In the order read thirdly, an order had been issued restraining absolutely the erection of statue.
2. In the all Party Meeting that took place on 22.10.98 and 28.10.98 the following decisions were taken regarding the erection of a statue.
1.In future, if any statue to be erected, it should be done only with the prior permission of the Government.
2.The persons who erect the statue have to take charge of its protection and maintenance.
3.The responsibility to maintain the statues already erected and its security lies on the Sangam or Division/Section or the private person who install such statues.
3. On the basis of the decisions taken in the All Party Meeting, it was examined regarding this fact. As a result, the Government alters all the orders issued till now, regarding the erection of statues and issues the following order in respect of the procedures to be followed:
1.The Government sanction should be obtained for the installation of statue, memorial, memorial arch and memorial pillar.
2.The statues, memorial pillar, memorial and memorial arch that had already been erected should be protected The persons who erected that (Sangam, Division/Section or private party) should take up the responsibility of its security and maintenance.
3.If it requires to shift the statues already erected to protective places to prevent from ruining and then return and erect them in the same place, regarding this issue, an order shall be obtained from the Government, and then, the concerned private party or section shall shift the same.
4. The Municipal Commissioner and Director of Town Panchayat are requested to intimate the aforesaid Government order to all local administrations.
/ By Order of the Governor / S.Malathi Secretary to Government"
9.G.O.Ms.No.248, Rural Development (C2) Department, dated 23.11.1998, has been issued, with the following guidelines:-
?5iyf? FWWj? k?W. guhkOj?
----------------------------------------------------
Cuf ts)=5 (52)Jiw murhiz (Fiy) v8. 248 eh? : 23.11.1998
1. murhiz (Fiy)v8. 1711, Cuf ts)=5 k?W. c?sh 5O Jiw eh? 26.10.1979.
2. Cuf ts)=5O Jiw? foj. v8. 15611/53/94-6 eh? 12.6.1995.
3. murhiz v8. 186, efuh 5 F)thf. k?W. Foi) tHuf? Jiw eh? 21.9.1998.
Miz gh)it x?(? f8L?s murhiz?, 5iy br?J FWWtJ r.k&jkhf V?gl- Toa KG= bryW-F. rkkhd (mjhtJ 100 rjj. c?s bjhifia, X c?sh 5 mik>G?F 5iy guhk>G?fhf 5iy it>gt)f? bfhL-f nt8L. vd muR Miz L?sJ. gh)it 2-? c?s muR fojO6? bghJ>gO Jiw bt L?s m(-if?go Cuh 5 k?W. Cuh 5 x?(a> gF6fS-F? mDk6?( ngh-FtuOJ-F Xil?r? X?yhk? 5iyf? FWt>g L XU&jh? m&j&j> gF6? mik6-F guf. V?glhk?, 5iy FWat)f l. 5iyia guhk-f gh)it x?(? c?s murhiz? F(>Gl>g L?s bjhifia bg?W guhkOJ tUkhW., bjhif brYOj> bgwhj 5iyfis mf?( LkhW. Cuf ts)=5 Xa-Fe) m(WWOj>g L?sh). gh)it _?(? f8L?s murhiz? murhufnkh m?yJ j>g l FWtdufnsh v&j jiytU-F. 5iy FWWj? TlhJ vd efuh 5 F)thf. k?W. Foi) tHuf? Jiw Miz L?sJ.
1.X&Fiy? 22.10.98 k?W. 26.10.98 m?W eilbg?w midOJ- f 5f? T lO6? 5iy it>gJ bjhl)ghf %?-f8l KoWf? vL-f>g ld.
2.Xnk? 6ajhf 5iy it>gjhf XU&jh?, mJ mu5? K? mDk6 bg?w G?dnu it-f>gl nt8L.. 3.5iyfis it>gt)fns ghJfh> k?W. guhk>> bghW>ig V?W- bfh?s nt8L..
4.V?fdnt it-f>g L?s 5iyf? guhk-/?w bghW>. ghJfh-/?w bghW>G? m&j= 5iyfis itOj ruf. m?yJ GW m?yJ j>g ltiuna rhU..
5.5iy FWWtJ bjhl)ghf V?fdnt bt l>g l Mizf? midOijV. kh?( /uhk Cuh 5 / Cuh 5 x?(a. / kht l Cuh 5f ? gF6f ? 5iy FWWtJ k?W. guhk>gJ bjhl)ghf 6jhf Mizf? bt l XOJiw fUJ/wJ.
6.muR Xjid e?F g` OJ %?-f8lthW MizL/wJ.
7.5iy, FidWO Jh8, FidW k8lg., FidW tisW ngh?wit vJthD. mu5? x>jiy> bg?whf nt8L..
8.V?fdnt FWt>g L?s 5iyf? ghJfh-f>gl nt8L.. mt?iw> bghWOjk oY. m=5iyfis FWat)fns (5iy itOj ruf., GW, j>g lt) ngh?wt)) ghJfh> k?W. guhk>> bghW>ig V?W- bfh?s nt8L..
9.V?fdnt FWt>g l 5iyf? `)Fiyahk
-f, m=5iyfis ghJfh>ghd XlufS-F- bfh8L br?W 6U.gW. FWWtij njitbad- fUj>g lh?, XJ F(OJ mu5l. Miz bg?w G? r.k&j>g l jeg) mik> ngh?wt?wh? kh?( mik-f>glyh..
10.nkny F(>G lgo, 5iy it>gJ bjhl)ghf bt l>gL. Mizf? FidWO Jh8, FidW k8lg., FidW tisW M/ait mik>gj?F. bghU&J..
11.nkny gO6 4-? bt l>gL. Mizf?, Mizf? bt l>gL. eh U&J mKY-F tU/?wd.
(MSe? Miz>go) XunkZ r&6u g8lh muR brayhs)''
10.In T.Amirthalingam vs. State, reported in (2010) 2 MLJ 1022, a statute of Dr.B.R.Ambedkar, Founding Father of the Indian Constitution, was sought to be shifted from the place where it was originally located in front of the Village Panchayat Library of Pazhaya Pattinam Village, Virudhachalam Taluk, Cuddalore District, and to relocate the same, on the banks of a village pond, near a dalit settlement. It was the case of the villagers that the Revenue Divisional Officer, and the Tahsildar were in favour of the proposal and they challenged that any opposition to such proposal would result in police custody. Apprehension of disturbance to communal harmony in the village, was also raised. A writ petition was filed against the move for shifting. Having regard to the deployment of many policemen, and official machineries, orders were sought from the Hon'ble First Bench. After taking note of the Government orders, deliberations of the peace committee meeting, criminal cases registered between the parties, the report of the committee, which visited the village, the Hon'ble First Bench, at paragraph 38, observed as follows:-
''It is most unfortunate that the statue of Dr.B.R.Ambedkar which was already located at a place for more than a year, (and which place could not be considered to be in any manner controversial one), was sought to be shifted to a dalit settlement. It is highly deplorable that a National Leader is sought to be considered as a leader of a community disregarding his contribution to citizens of India irrespective of their caste, religion, and community.''
11.In P.Maniyarasan, General Secretarty, Tamizh Thesa Poduvudamai Katchi vs. Government of Tamil Nadu, and four others, reported in 2011 (1) CWC 379, one K.Muthukumar, a Tamil Youth terminated his life, demanding cease-fire to stop the killing of Eelam Tamils. The petitioner therein, wanted to put up a bust-size statute of Muthukumar in the land, exclusively belonged to a private person. The District Collector, Thanjavur, informed the petitioner therein, that permission from the State Government, should be obtained, for installation of the statue. Documents were sought for and undertaking from the petitioner was directed. Information was sought for, under the Right to Information Act, 2005, to furnish Government orders and regulations, in erecting a statue in private lands. A reply was given that there were no details available in the office. In the above factual scenario, a writ petition was filed, seeking permission to unveil the statue. One of the contentions raised by the petitioner therein, was that for installation of a statue in a private land, no prior permission is required. G.O.No.248, Rural Development Department dated 23.11.1998 was pressed into service, by the Government, to contend that prior permission is required for installation of a statue, even in patta land. Referring to paragraph 12(ii) of the counter affidavit filed by the Home Secretary, in T.Amirthalingam vs. State, reported in (2010) 2 MLJ 1022, and Rule 4(3) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Building Rules, 1997, a learned single Judge of this Court, at paragraph 16 in P.Maniyarasan's case, held as follows:-
''16.If the argument of the learned Special Government Pleader is accepted, then for putting up or hanging the picture of ones own parents or forefathers in the private pattadars lands, they should move the authorities (whether it is local body, revenue or police authorities) for seeking such permission. Such step is never contemplated. The attempt by the respondents is to clutch to a non existing power. The Special Government Pleader had attempted to submit that the Government guidelines can be a law also cannot stand to reason. An embargo on the citizen's right to make use of his own land without any hindrance and it can be done in the absence of any valid law circumscribing such act, cannot be entertained by this court. A fetter on a citizen's right must be spelt out by a valid law made by the State legislature and that law alone can regulate the questions raised in this writ petition.''
12.At this juncture, it is also worthwhile to extract paragraph 12(ii) of the counter affidavit of the Home Secretary, considered in P.Maniyarasan's case.
"12(ii)The Home Secretary has further stated in the affidavit that it is the policy of the Government that the statue of the National Leaders and public personalities whether in the field of politics or otherwise cannot and should not be erected in any public place without the prior permission of the Government. She referred to the guidelines already existing in this behalf in G.O.Ms.No.221 dated 20.11.1998. In paragraph-4 of the affidavit she has stated that the parties concerned should approach the District Collector for permission of placing the statue in the earlier location and the authorities would consider the same and thereafter the Government would pass suitable orders. In paragraph- 5 the Home Secretary prayed that this Court may pass suitable orders in the present petition so that similar instances of installing statues of public figures without the permission of the State Government do not take place, and the submissions made in her affidavit be recorded."
13.As regards the objections of the respondents therein, at paragraph 18, the Writ Court further added as hereunder:-
''18.This court is of the opinion that the objections raised by the respondents are not based on any sound legal foundation. The respondents cannot prevent the petitioner's political party in installing a bust-size statue of a person who in their esteem is a Martyr, in a private land. Instead of asking the petitioner to furnish the details of adangal, chitta, FMB sketch, etc, the second respondent himself being the head of the Revenue Department can very well verify the credentials of the claim made by the petitioner from their records and satisfy themselves that the land in question is not a poramboke land or notified public pathway.''
14.In Srivilliputhoor Saiva Vellalar Sangam vs. The District Collector (W.P(MD)No.8935 of 2012, dated 29.08.2012), a Writ of Mandamus was sought for, directing the respondents therein, from interfering with the function, relating to unveiling of the statue of V.O.Chidambaram at No.13-A Madavar Valagam Agraharam, Srivilliputhur, belonging to the abovesaid sangam. Objection was raised by the respondents therein, that prior permission was not obtained from the Government, as per G.O(Per)No.221, Rural Development Department, wherein, instructions were given regarding erection of a statue, Memorial Pillar, Memorial Hall or Memorial Arch. Taking note of the decision in T.Amirthalingam's case, a learned single Judge of this Court, at paragraphs 4 and 5 in W.P(MD)No.8935 of 2012, dated 29.08.2012, held as follows:-
''4.However, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in P.Maniyarasan .vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu reported in 2011(1) CWC 379, this Court after reviewing the orders of the Government as well as the judgement passed by this Court in T.Amirthalintam .vs. State, represented by its Secretary, Department of Home, Chennai and others reported in 2010(2) MLJ 1022 has observed that there is no authority for the Government to prevent the persons installing statue in a private land which according to the persons who believe in the greatness of their individuals. Further isto the nature of statue to be held, this Court is of the view that there is no impediment for a person to install a statue depending upon their wishes whether the statue should be made of clay or wood or stone or metal as the case may be, the State cannot interfere with the same. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner also produced a copy of the D.O Letter of the Principal Secretary to Government,Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai addressed to the District Collector, Virudhunagar District, dated 12.08.2008. In that case, relating to installation of the statue of Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar at Rajapalayam. In that case, the State Government had stated that for unveiling statue, there is no requirement of the State Government's permission and if any statues are installed, appropriate steps should be taken to protect the same from being damaged by anti-social elements. There should not be any room for law and order problem. From this, it is made clear that for installation of the statue of V.O.Chidambaram Pillai, who has rendered his life for the independence of this country and in the absence of any legal impediment, there is no question of preventing the petitioner Sangam from unveiling the statue on their own association compound.
5. In view of the stand taken by the respondents, since it is a stone statue, there is no need for Government permission and obtaining of Government permission does not give any legal problem in unveiling the statue of V.O.Chidambaram Pillai.''
15.It is further held that in the absence of any legal impediment, it has been made clear that for installation of the statue of V.O.C., who has sacrificed his life for the independence of this country, there is no question of preventing the petitioner Sangam from unveiling the statue on their own association compound. At paragraph 6, this Court observed as follows:-
''.......national leaders who have reached a greater height have been reduced as community representatives it is rather unfortunate that the past history of such leaders are not revealed and they are identified as a representative of a particular community rather than being projected as a national heroes who suffered not only their live but also their family for the freedom of this Country.''
16.Thus, it could be seen that in more than one instance, this Court has observed that National Leaders, are unfortunately depicted as community leaders in the State. Though reliance is placed on the interim order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Union of India vs. State of Gujarat and others (SLP(Civil)No.8519/2006, dated 18.01.2013), and objections were made for installation of VOC statue, this Court is not inclined to countenance the same, for the reason that installation of a statue in the abovesaid case, was sought to be made near Neyyattinkara ? Poovar Road, in a curve turning to KSRTC Bus Stand, Neyyattinkara, on Kanyakumari National Highway. As the statue was proposed to be erected on a Highway, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as hereunder:-
4. ......We further direct that henceforth, State Government shall not grant any permission for installation of any statue or construction of any structure in public roads, pavements, sideways and other public utility places. Obviously, this order shall not apply to installation of high mast lights, street lights or construction relating to electrification, traffic, toll or for development and beautification of the streets, highways, roads etc. and relating to public utility and facilities.
5.The above order shall also apply to all other states and union territories. The concerned Chief Secretary/Administrator shall ensure compliance of the above order.''
17.Facts of the abovesaid case, relied on by the learned Additional Government Pleader, is inapposite to the case on hand. Installation of V.O.C. statue in the instant case, is opposed on the ground that it is in a ''place open public view'', as per Explanation 2(c) of Section 2 of the Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1959, and that the area is communally hyper sensitive. The said objection cannot be countenanced, for the reason that there are many statues of National Leaders in open places. There cannot be any total prohibition of installation of a statue in a ''place open public view'', and more so, in the case on hand, when the statue of a National Leader is sought to be erected, in a private land, though open to public view. On the contra, it should be in public view. There is no reason as to why a statue of a National Leader, should not be in public view. Though some of the instances placed before this Court may indicate that there were some clashes between two groups; some cases registered against different communities, there is no incident regarding installation of any statue.
18.As observed earlier, this Court in Srivilliputhoor Saiva Vellalar Sangam vs. The District Collector (W.P(MD)No.8935 of 2012, dated 29.08.2012), has expressed its displeasure that even the National Leader, V.O.C has been depicted as a community leader. When there is no need to obtain prior permission from the Government, for erection of a statue, in a patta land, more so, a National Leader, objections of the appellants are liable to be rejected. On the other hand, it is the considered view of this Court that whenever statues of National Leaders are erected, State and its Machineries should give adequate protection, so that future generation of this Country would atleast have an opportunity to see the images of such National Leaders.
19.The Hon'ble First Bench in T.Amirthalingam's case, directed that the statue has to be shifted, in the presence of the District Collector and the Superintendent of Police, by fixing a time. The observation of the Hon'ble First Bench, on the facts and circumstances of the above case, only depicts the attitude and mind-set of few sections of the society, in raising an issue, whatever be the sacrifice, service and contributions of the National Leaders to the citizens of India, and encircling them as Leaders belonging to 'X' or 'Y' community. Such narrow minded persons only forget the fact that the freedom, which we now enjoy, is only because of them. When they fought for our freedom, there was no caste, creed or colour. Thus, they were united. Today, we stand apart, on the grounds of community and religion. Taking note of the instances of clashes on the grounds of community and religion, all the citizens should take a constitutional oath, on the Independence Day, as to what we have resolved to ourselves. Let the Preamble to our Constitution, be known to all our citizens. While teaching moral and discipline in schools and colleges, let there be a programme for the students, to know our constitutional goals.
20.At this juncture, we only wish to quote the Great Tamil Poet Avvaiyar.
''rhjp ,uz;blhHpa ntwpy;iy rhw;Wq;fhy; ePjp tGth bewpKiwapd; nkjpdpapy; ,l;lhu; bghpnahu; ,lhjhu; ,HpFyj;njhu; gl;lhq;fpy; cs;sgo.'' Meaning : If people should be classified based on caste, the truth is to say that there are only two such classifications. The one who does not go off the path of ethical values, ethical behaviour, generosity called as Noble (bghpnahu;) and the ones that don?t - Ignoble (,HpFyj;njhu;). Other than than there are no other castes.
21.We also wish to quote Mahakavi Subramaniya Bharathiyar:-
rhjpfs; ,y;iyao ghg;gh! Fyj; jhH;r;rp cau;r;rp brhy;yy; ghtk;! However, on the facts and circumstances of this case, the place be secured with a compound wall.
22.In the light of the above discussion, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P(MD)No.3915 of 2016 is closed.
To
1)The District Collector, Madurai District.
2)The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai.
3)The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District.
4)The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Samayanallur, Madurai District.
5)The Inspector of Police,
Alanganallur Police Station,
Madurai District. .