Madras High Court
Mr.Rama Boopathy vs The Director General Of Police on 31 July, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 MAD 689
Author: S.Manikumar
Bench: S.Manikumar, Subramonium Prasad
W.P.Nos.22575 & 22669 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 31.07.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
W.P.Nos.22575 & 22669 of 2017
WP No.22575 of 2017
Mr.Rama Boopathy ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The Director General of Police,
O/o. Director General of Police,
Rajaji Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
O/o. The Commissioner of Police,
Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.
3. The Home Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George, Chennai.
4. The Home Secretary,
Government of India,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
North Block, Central Secretariat,
New Delhi - 110 001. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for
issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4 not to interfere
with the festival or restrain the people celebrating the festival for anything less
than 10 days.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Seetha Ram
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/48
W.P.Nos.22575 & 22669 of 2017
For Respondents : Mr.E.Manoharan (for R1 to R3)
Additional Government Pleader
W.P.No.22669 of 2017
S.Vijay ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The Chief Secretary,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George,
Chennai.
2. The Home Secretary,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George, Chennai.
3. The Director General of Police,
Office of the DGP,
Radhakrishnan Salai,
Chennai.
4. The Commissioner of Police,
Office of the Commissioner of Police,
Vepery, Chennai. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for
issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to restrict the number
of days of the Vinayaka Chathurthi i.e., Ganesa Festival from 10 days to 3 days.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Gowthaman
For Respondents : Mr.E.Manoharan
Additional Government Pleader
http://www.judis.nic.in
2/48
W.P.Nos.22575 & 22669 of 2017
COMMON ORDER
(Order of this Court was made by S.MANIKUMAR, J.) In W.P.No.22575 of 2017, petitioner has sought for issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4 not to interfere with the festival or restrain the people celebrating the festival for anything less than 10 days.
2. In WP No.22669 of 2017, petitioner has sought for issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to restrict the number of days of the Vinayaka Chathurthi i.e., Ganesa Festival from 10 days to 3 days.
3. Since both the writ petitions are for a mandamus, restricting the celebration of Vinayagar Chathurthi, they are taken up together and disposed of by a common order.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
5. A Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in WP No.21953 and 22240 of 2017 vide order dated 23.08.2017, held as follows:
"4. Article 25(1) of the Constitution of India guarantees every person in India the fundamental right to profess, practise and propagate religion. This right, however, is subject to restrictions that might be http://www.judis.nic.in 3/48 W.P.Nos.22575 & 22669 of 2017 imposed by the State to maintain public order, morality and health.
5. Freedom of conscience and freedom of religion would necessarily include the freedom to practice rituals and ceremonies in accordance with law. The right to perform religious worship at public places on certain occasions has been acquired by custom/usage. Having been so acquired, such right enjoys the protection of Article 25 of the Constitution. From the right to practice religion flows the right to take out religious processions, to install idols and to perform worship, subject to the restrictions that might be imposed by the State.
6. Religious practices are, however, protected only as long as they do not run counter to law, public safety, public health, morality and the civic rights of others. The right to install and worship idols at public places is subject to compliance with the laws of the land, obtaining of requisite permissions and/or approvals, such as permission of the local body, police clearance and fire safety clearance, and compliance of rules and regulations to protect life and preserve public health, environment, safety, morality, free movement and the like.
7. Section 41 of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888, provides as follows:
"S.41. Power to regulate assemblies, meetings and processions in public places etc. (1) The Commissioner, or subject to his orders, any Police-officer above the rank of head constable, may, from time to time, as occasion may require direct the conduct of all assemblies,meetings and processions in public places; prescribe the routes by which and the times at which such processions may pass; keep order in public places and prevent obstructions on the occasion of such assemblies, meetings and processions, and in the neighbourhood of places of worship during the time of public worship and in any case when public places may be thronged or liable to be obstructed and may licence and regulate or prohibit the use of music or of sound amplifiers in any area.
http://www.judis.nic.in 4/48 W.P.Nos.22575 & 22669 of 2017 (2) Subject to the provisions of sub-sections (3) and (4), the Commissioner may, by order in writing, prohibit any assembly, meeting or procession if he considers such prohibition to be necessary for the preservation of the public peace or public safety; Provided that no order under this sub- section shall, without the sanction of the State Government, remain in force for more than fifteen days from the date on which such order takes effect.
(3) (a) When the order referred to in sub-section (2) is in force, any person who intends to convene or collect any assembly or meeting in any public place or to direct or promote any procession, shall make an application to the Commissioner for permission. The application shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be specified by the commissioner in this behalf and shall be made not less than five days prior to the date on which the assembly or meeting is to be convened or collected or the procession is to be formed.
Provided that the Commissioner may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, receive such application within five days prior to the date aforesaid.
(b) On receipt of the application under clause (a), the Commissioner may, by order in writing served in the manner specified in sub-section (7), grant permission to convene or collect the assembly or meeting or to direct or promote the procession subject to such conditions as he may specify or refuse to grant such permission.
(4) Except in cases where immediate action is necessary for the preservation of the public peace or public safety no order refusing to grant permission shall be passed under clause (b) of sub-section (3) without giving the person concerned an opportunity of appearing before the Commissioner either in person or by pleader and showing cause against the order refusing to grant permission and the Commissioner shall record in writing the reason for such order.
http://www.judis.nic.in 5/48 W.P.Nos.22575 & 22669 of 2017 4-A. Without prejudice to the provisions of sub sections (1) to (4) where any person intends to direct or promote any procession, he shall give prior notice, in writing atleast 24 hours in advance of the commencement of such procession indicating therein the routes by which and the time at which the procession is proposed to be taken. Such notice shall be given to any police officer above the rank of a head constable of the police station having jurisdiction over the area in which the procession starts. (5) The Commissioner may, by order in writing, depute one or more Police- officer or other persons, to be present in any such assembly, meeting or procession, for the purpose of causing a report to be taken of the proceedings.
(6) Any person who:-
(a) opposes or fails to obey any order under sub-section (1), or
(b) contravenes the conditions of any licence under sub-section (1), or (bb) fails to give prior notice referred to in subsection (4-A), or
(c) When the order referred to in sub-section (2) is in force, convenes or collects any assembly or meeting or directs or promotes any procession:-
(i) without the permission of the Commissioner under clause (b) of sub- section (3), or
(ii) in contravention of any of the conditions subject to which the permission was granted under that clause, shall be liable, on conviction, to a fine not exceeding one thousand rupees, or to imprisonment not exceeding one month, or both.
(7) The order referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (3) shall be served:-
(a) by giving or tendering the order to the person concerned; or
(b) if such person is not found, by leaving such order at his last known place of abode or business or by giving or tendering the same to some adult member or servant of his family; or
(c) if such person does not reside in the City of Madras and his address elsewhere is known to the Commissioner, by sending the same to him by post registered; or http://www.judis.nic.in 6/48 W.P.Nos.22575 & 22669 of 2017
(d) if none of the means aforesaid be available, by affixing the same in some conspicuous part of the place of abode or business of such person. (8) Nothing in this section shall apply to any assembly or meeting of a purely religious character held in a recognised place or worship, any assembly or meeting gathered together purely for the purpose of taking part in sports, any procession on the occasion of any wedding, funeral or similar domestic occurrence, or of any religious ceremony, or to any public meeting held under any statutory or other express legal authority, or to public meetings convened by the sheriff, or to any public meetings or class of public meetings exempted for that purpose by the State Government by general or special order.
(9) For the purposes of this section:-
(a) the words "assembly", "meeting" and "procession" include any assembly, meeting or procession which is open to the public or to any class or portion of the public.
(b) a place in which an assembly or meeting is held may be a public place notwithstanding that it is held in a private place and notwithstanding that admission thereto may have been restricted by ticket or otherwise."
8. For the purpose of preservation of public peace, public order or public safety, the Commissioner might, by order in writing, prohibit any assembly, meeting or procession, which, in our view, would include installation of idols and public worship of such idols on public streets and public land. Such worship would also attract the aforesaid Section.
9. Sub-section (3) requires any person, who intends to perform any public worship or take out any religious procession, to make an application to the Commissioner for permission. The application is required to be in such form, and contain such particulars as might be specified by the Commissioner in this behalf, and is to be made not less than five days prior to the date on which the public worship is to take place. The proviso to Section 41 (3), however, enables the Commissioner to receive applications filed later, for reasons to be recorded in writing.
http://www.judis.nic.in 7/48 W.P.Nos.22575 & 22669 of 2017
10. On receipt of the application, the Commissioner might grant permission to hold worship subject to conditions that the Commissioner might specify or he might refuse to grant such permission. There can be no question of installation of any idols or any 'pandhals' or structures on public land without the requisite permissions.
11. In view of Section 41(4) of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888, except in cases where immediate action is necessary for the preservation of public peace or public safety, no order refusing to grant permission is to be passed without giving the concerned person opportunity of hearing before the Commissioner, either in person or by pleader. On a combined reading of the various sub-sections of Section 41, it is apparent that permission to hold public worship cannot be refused altogether unless the same is necessary for preservation of public peace or public safety.
12. Since all roads and pavements in the city of Chennai vest in and are properties of Chennai Municipal Corporation, permission of the Chennai Municipal Corporation to hold such public worship is imperative. Reference may be made to Section 223 of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919.
13. The holding of public worship, be it Vinayagar worship or any other worship, in the city of Chennai contemplates (i) permission of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation; and (ii) permission of the Commissioner of Police, Chennai. In addition, considering the nature of such worship and/or celebrations which involve illumination and setting up of temporary structures with materials, which are often inflammable, clearance of the fire safety authorities under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Fire Safety Act, 1985, is also absolutely imperative. The provisions of the Pollution Control laws and in particular, the Hazardous Waste Management Rules restricting the use of pollutant substances are also required to be complied with.
14. In exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu City Police Act, 1888, the Commissioner of Police has http://www.judis.nic.in 8/48 W.P.Nos.22575 & 22669 of 2017 prohibited all assemblies, processions, fasts, demonstrations, human chain meeting, installation of Vinayagar idols at unrecognised places in streets, roads, thoroughfares or other public places within Greater Chennai police jurisdiction for a period of fifteen (15) days commencing from 22.08.2017 to 06.09.2017. However, the prohibition is not to apply in cases where permission is granted by the Commissioner subject to conditions that might be imposed by the Commissioner.
15. The order, inter alia, provides as follows:
"7. ..... However, taking into consideration of large scale installation of Vinayagar Idols at unrecognised places in Chennai city on the eve of Vinayagar Chathurthi festival, with a view to maintain public peace, tranquility, public safety and regulation of traffic, the following conditions have to be complied with by the organizers scrupulously for installation of Vinayagar idols and immersion procession in Chennai City. i. Police permission should be obtained for installation of idols.
ii. If the idol is installed in a private place, consent of the owner of the land should be obtained and in case of any public place, permission should be obtained from Corporation / Other Local bodies. iii. The idols proposed to be installed should be made of pure clay without coating of toxic paints as stipulated by TNPCB.
iv. The height of the idol including the base/dais should not exceed 10 feet.
v. The idols should not be installed nearby other religious places such as mosques, churches, etc. vi. The idols should not be installed at the traffic congested / thickly populated areas / near the hospitals / at the places objected by public. vii. Fire preventive measures should be arranged at the place of idol installation.
viii. Sound amplifier licence conditions should be strictly adhered and no sound amplifier shall be used in the moving vehicles carrying idols.
http://www.judis.nic.in 9/48 W.P.Nos.22575 & 22669 of 2017 ix. Music programmes / Slogans inciting sentiments of other religions should be avoided.
x. Bursting of crackers at the place of installation which will cause noise pollution should be avoided.
xi. The idol immersion procession should be taken out with Police permission at the route and time specified by the police and the idols should be immersed at the notified immersion points, adhering to the conditions.
xii. The organisers should strictly follow any other conditions laid down by the jurisdiction police officers in the interest of maintaining public peace, public safety and communal harmony.
16. Needless to mention that no Vinayagar idol can be installed during the ensuing Vinayagar Chaturthi festival, except with permission from the Commissioner and in compliance with the conditions of such permission, in view of the order dated 22nd August, 2017, referred to above.
17.The order dated 22nd August, 2017, issued by the Commissioner is of limited duration. As pointed out in the second writ petition, there are no Rules, Regulations or guidelines in the State to regulate public worship by installation of idols on religious occasions. It is imperative that Rules and/or Regulations be framed and publicized by the State, laying down detailed guidelines for temporary installation of idols at public places for public worship, immersion, processions, etc.
18. Pending the framing of Rules and/or Regulations regulating installation of idols on public streets/public land and worship thereof, the respondent authorities shall ensure that
a) The requisite permissions and/or approvals, particularly the approval of the municipal corporation, police, fire service and pollution control authorities is obtained.
b) No idols made of polluting materials such as Plaster of Paris or painted with prohibited polluting chemical colours are installed.
http://www.judis.nic.in 10/48 W.P.Nos.22575 & 22669 of 2017
c) The organizers avoid using inflammable materials for construction of temporary structures and provide entrances and exits, which are wide enough for smooth and easy ingress into and exit out of 'Pandhals' and/or structures in a regulated manner.
d) Public address system should not exceed the prescribed noise decibel limit and in the event any music is played, the music should not exceed the prescribed noise decibel limit.
e) There is a complete ban on use of amplifiers and loudspeakers and bursting of sound emitting fire crackers between 10.00 p.m. and 6.00 a.m.
f) The fire safety norms and rules are strictly complied with and the 'Pandhals' including the electrical installations thereof are inspected and approved by the concerned fire authorities.
g) Adequate first aid and emergency medical facilities are made available.
h) No inflammable materials are stored in and around the worship areas.
i) No illegal activities take place under the garb of Vinayagar worship including pilferage of electricity.
j) There is no unauthorized tapping and/or pilferage of electricity by organizers of Vinayagar worship.
k) The immersion of idols should be conducted in an orderly manner at the spots specified by the concerned police authorities and the immersion procession should follow routes and timings approved by the police.
19. The Chairman cum Managing Director of Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., hereinafter referred to as 'TANGEDCO', has filed an affidavit indicating the steps that are taken to detect cases of theft of energy. In paragraph 7 of the affidavit, it is stated that the organisers of such functions might approach TANGEDCO for temporary supply for the purpose of illumination, etc., for which a temporary service connection is effected and current consumption charges collected as per the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission (TNERC) Rules. Any unauthorised tapping of power from pillar boxes or overhead lines attracts criminal cases. The organizers should, therefore, apply for and obtain http://www.judis.nic.in 11/48 W.P.Nos.22575 & 22669 of 2017 temporary supply of electricity from TANGEDCO upon payment of requisite charges.
20. The State shall frame Regulations and/or Rules formulating detailed guidelines of the requisites that have to be complied with by all organizers who temporarily install idols on public land and perform public worship. Such guidelines should include the requisite safety and fire safety measures required to be taken by the organizers, measures to prevent environmental and noise pollution, measures to avoid obstruction of traffic to the extent feasible, the requisite civil and medical facilities required to be provided by the organizers, etc. The Regulations shall be enforced the next time any idol of Vinayagar or any other deity is temporarily installed for worship on any public land.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed."
6. In yet another case, in W.P.No.22911 of 2018 between S.Sudalaiyandi and The Secretary to the Government of Tamilnadu, order of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.598, Public, (Law & Order.B) Department dated 09.08.2018, regulating celebration of Vinayagar Chathurthi, was challenged and after considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, on 05.09.2018, this Court held as follows:
"15. Towards implementation of the directions of the Hon'ble Division Bench, in the abovesaid common order, State Government have framed guidelines for installation and worship of Vinayakar idols and for immersion thereof, and issued G.O.Ms.No.598, Public (Law & Order.B) Department, dated 09.08.2018.
16. G.O.Ms.No.598, Public (Law & Order.B) Department, dated 09.08.2018, reads thus.
http://www.judis.nic.in 12/48 W.P.Nos.22575 & 22669 of 2017 ABSTRACT LAW & ORDER - Guidelines for installation and worship of Vinayakar idols and also immersion thereof - Notified.
PUBLIC (LAW & ORDER. B) DEPARTMENT
G.O.Ms.No.598 Dated: 09.08.2018
Vilambhi, Aadi-24
Thiruvalluvar Aandu-2049
1. Orders of Hon'ble High Court, Chennai, dated 23.08.2017 in W.P.No.21953/2017 dand 22240/2017.
2. From the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Letter No.753/S.B.XII/2017 dated 23.09.2017.
3. From the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Letter No. WDC/2210/2017, dated 23.04.2018.
------
ORDER:
Proposals have been received from the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai and the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai regarding formation of guidelines / rules for temporary installation and worship of idols on public land, duly taking into account the observations made by the Hon'ble High Court in a batch of Writ Petitions on the issue.
2. The Government examined the issue in detail. With a view to maintaining public peace, tranquility, public safety, regulation of traffic and control of pollution, the Government, after careful consideration, issue the Guidelines regarding the installation and worship of Vinayakar idols and also immersion thereof, as in the Annexure to this Government Order and notify the same for the State of Tamil Nadu.
3. The officials concerned are hereby instructed to give wide publicity to the above guidelines and ensure strict implementation of the same with immediate effect.
4. This order issues with the concurrence of Environment and Forests Department, vide its U.O. dated 03.08.2018 and Home http://www.judis.nic.in 13/48 W.P.Nos.22575 & 22669 of 2017 Department, vide its U.O.No.1, dated 03.08.2018.
(BY ORDER OF THE GOVERNOR) P.SENTHIL KUMAR, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (FAC), To All Secretaries to Government, Secretariat, Chennai - 9. All District Collectors.
All Commissioners of Police.
All Superintendents of Police.
The Director General of Police, Chennai - 4.
The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Chennai-7. The Additional Director General of Police (Law and Order), Chennai-4. The Inspector General of Police, Intelligence, Chennai-4. The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Chennai-3. The Director of Stationery and Printing, Chennai-2. The Works Manager, Government Central Press, Chennai - 79.
(Two copies - for publication of the Notification in an Extra-ordinary issue of Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated 09.08.2018) The Secretary to Governor, Raj Bhavan, Chennai - 22.01.2018 The Secretary (III) to Chief Minister, Chennai - 9. The Director of Information & Public Relations, Chennai-9. The Registrar General, High Court, Chennai - 104. The Advocate General of Tamil Nadu, High Court, Chennai - 104. The Government Pleader, High Court, Chennai - 104.
Copy to:
The Home / Environment & Forests / Municipal Administration & Water Supply / Rural Development & Panchayat Raj / Energy / Highways & Minor Ports / Law Department, Chennai - 9.
The Accountant General, Chennai-9 / 18.
The Pay and Accounts Officer, Chennai-9 / 18.
The Resident Audit Officer, Chennai - 9.
Stock File / Spare Copies.
/ Forwarded // By order / SECTION OFFICER ANNEXURE Guidelines regarding installation and worship of Vinayakar idols http://www.judis.nic.in 14/48 W.P.Nos.22575 & 22669 of 2017 and also immersion thereof With a view to maintain public peace, tranquility, public safety, regulation of traffic and control of pollution, the following guidelines are issued for the State of Tamil Nadu :-
(1) Any organiser intending to install Vinayakar Idol should apply in a prescribed format (as in Form-I) to the Assistant Commissioners of Police concerned, where there are Police Commissionerates, and RDO / Sub-
Collector in all other cases, at least a month in advance along with No Objection Certificates (NOCs) obtained from
(i) Land owner concerned. If the proposed land is a public land, NOC from the Local Bodies concerned/ Highways or the Department concerned should be obtained;
(ii) The Station House Officer concerned (including Sound Amplifier License / Permit);
(iii) Fire and Rescue Services to the effect that temporary structures erected adhere to the fire safety standards;
and
(i) A letter indicating source of power supply and proof of temporary supply of electricity from TANGEDCO.
Necessary permission will be issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Police in Police Commissionerates, and RDO / Sub-Collector in other cases in Form-II annexed to the guidelines.
(2) The Idols proposed to be installed should be made of pure clay and should not be made of any polluting materials such as Plaster of Paris or painted with prohibited polluting chemicals and as stipulated by Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board and Central Pollution Control Board from time to time. In case Idols are to be painted, water soluble and non-toxic natural dyes alone should be used. Use of toxic and non-biodegradable chemical dyes for painting Idols is strictly prohibited.
(3) The organisers should avoid using inflammable materials for construction of temporary structures and should provide entry and exit, which are wide enough for smooth and easy ingress into and exit out of 'Pandhals' and / or structures in a regulated manner.
(4) The organisers should ensure that adequate first aid and emergency medical facilities are made available and no inflammable materials are stored in and around the worship areas.
(5) The height of the Idol proposed to be installed should not exceed 10 feet including the base and the dais.
(6) Installation of Idols near other religious places / hospitals / educational institutions should be avoided.
http://www.judis.nic.in 15/48 W.P.Nos.22575 & 22669 of 2017 (7) Sound Amplifier (Mike) License would be granted only for two hours in the morning and two hours in the evening, during Pooja. Cone type speakers are prohibited and only box type speakers should be used. Public Address System should not exceed the prescribed noise decibel limit and in the event any music is played, the music should not exceed the prescribed noise decibel limit.
(8) The organisers should ensure that no illegal activities take place under the garb of Vinayakar worship including unauthorized tapping and / or pilferage of electricity.
(9) No flex boards in support of any political party or communal leader shall be erected at the premises of the programme.
(10) Organisers should depute two volunteers round the clock for safety of the Idol. The installation places of Idol should be properly illuminated. Generator set may be provided in case of power failure.
(11) Shouting of slogans inciting communal hatred and affecting the sentiments of other religions shall not be permitted at any cost.
(12) The organisers should strictly follow any other conditions laid down by the Revenue / Police / Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board authorities in the interest of maintaining public peace, public safety and communal harmony.
(13) The Fire and Rescue Services should ensure that fire safety norms and rules are strictly complied with and the 'Pandhals' including the electrical installations thereof are inspected and approved by the fi re authorities concerned.
(14) The District Collectors concerned shall annually finalise the list of Idol immersion points in their districts in consultation with the Police Department, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Local Bodies and related Departments. Idols should be immersed only in the designated 'Idol Immersion Points' identified by the authorities concerned.
(15) Vinayakar Idols installed in the public places for worship should be taken out for immersion within five days from the date of installation.
(16) Vinayakar Idol immersion procession should be taken out before 1200 hours on the specified day in the approved routes prescribed by the Police through vehicles and immersed in the designated places in an orderly manner. Wherever possible, the procession should be taken out through the routes by-passing the mosques / churches, as stipulated by the Police authorities.
http://www.judis.nic.in 16/48 W.P.Nos.22575 & 22669 of 2017 (17) Four wheelers, (i.e.), mini lorry / tractor should only be used for carrying the Idols. Bullock cart/fish cart/ three wheelers would not be permitted.
(18) Capacity of participants travelling in the vehicle carrying Vinayakar Idol should be in accordance with the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.
(19) Bursting of crackers at the Vinayakar Idol installation places / immersion points / procession routes should not be allowed.
(20) Worship materials like flowers, clothes, decorating material (made of paper and plastic), etc., should be removed before immersion of Idols. Bio-degradable materials should be collected separately for recycling or composting. Non-biodegradable materials should be collected separately for disposal in sanitary landfills.
(21) The 'Idol Immersion Points' shall be cordoned off and barricaded. Synthetic liner may be placed in the bottom, well in advance. The said liner shall be removed on completion of immersion ceremony so that the remains of Idols would be brought to the bank. Bamboo and wooden logs, if any, would be reused. Clay, etc., may be taken to sanitary landfill for disposal.
(22) Within 48 hours of the immersion of Idols, the left over material at the Idol immersion points on the banks of rivers, lakes, beaches, etc., should be collected by the local bodies for disposal.
(23) Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board should conduct water quality assessment of the water body, preferably in Municipal Corporations at three stages, (i.e.), pre-immersion, during immersion and post immersion. Considering the size of water body, appropriate number of sampling locations may be determined in order to get a fairly representative assessment of water quality. For ascertaining water quality, physico-chemical parameters such as pH, DO, BOD, COD, Conductivity, Turbidity, TDS, Total Solids and Metals (Chromium, Lead, Zinc and Copper) may be analysed.
(24) The appeal against the order of permission issuing authority lies with the Commissioner of Police in Police Commissionerates and District Collector in other cases.
FORM - I Application for permission to install Idol and to take out processions From (Name and address with contact details of the http://www.judis.nic.in 17/48 W.P.Nos.22575 & 22669 of 2017 convenor who intends to install Idols and to take out procession).
To The Sub-Collector (or) The Revenue Divisional Officer (or) The Assistant Commissioner of Police (as the case may be) Sir, I hereby apply for permission to install Idol (not exceeding ..............................feet) at .......................... ................... ....................situated within ............................ Police limits in .......................Taluk of .................... District.
I forward herewith the following particulars in duplicate, duly signed by me:-
(a) NOC from the Land owner concerned. If the proposed land is a public land, NOC from the Local Bodies/ Highways or the Department concerned;
(b) NOC from the Station House Officer concerned (including Sound Amplifier License / Permit);
(c) NOC from Fire and Rescue Services to the effect that temporary structures erected adhere to the fire safety standards;
and
(i) A letter indicating source of power supply and proof of temporary supply of electricity from TANGEDCO.
UNDERTAKING (1) I agree to install Idol made of bio-degradable material such as clay and use only natural dyes and will not use chemical colours.
(2) I agree to proceed with installation of the Idol only with prior permission.
(3) I agree to use the amplifiers and loudspeakers within the permissible limits in the specified timing.
(4) I agree to refrain from bursting of crackers. (5) I agree that I will not tap electricity illegally. (6) I agree that no flex boards in support of any political party or communal leader will be erected.
(7) I agree that the Idol immersion procession will be taken out with Police permission at the route and time specified by the Police and the Idols will be immersed at the notified immersion points as per the conditions laid down.
(8) I agree that I will abide by any other conditions put forth for http://www.judis.nic.in 18/48 W.P.Nos.22575 & 22669 of 2017 permission.
Signature of the Convenor who intends to install Idols and take out procession FORM - II Permission to install the Idols and permission for procession From The Sub-Collector (or) The Revenue Divisional Officer (or) The Assistant Commissioner of Police (as the case may be) To (Name and address of the convenor who intends to install Idols and and to take out procession).
Sir / Madam, Permission is hereby accorded for installation of Idol (not exceeding 10 feet) from .............. to .............. at ................................ within ...................... Police limits in .............Taluk of ......... ......District, subject to the conditions attached herewith.
Sub-Collector (or) Revenue Divisional Officer (or) Assistant Commissioner of Police Date :
Place :
Copy to :
PERMISSION IS ISSUED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS :-
(a) The Idols proposed to be installed should be made of pure clay and should not be made of any polluting materials such as Plaster of Paris or painted with prohibited polluting chemicals and as stipulated by Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board and Central Pollution Control Board from time to time. In case Idols are to be painted, water soluble and non-toxic natural dyes alone should be used. Use of toxic and non-biodegradable chemical dyes for painting Idols is strictly prohibited.
(b) The organisers should avoid using inflammable materials for construction of temporary structures and should provide entry and exit, http://www.judis.nic.in 19/48 W.P.Nos.22575 & 22669 of 2017 which are wide enough for smooth and easy ingress into and exit out of 'Pandhals' and / or structures in a regulated manner.
(c) The organisers should ensure that adequate first aid and emergency medical facilities are made available and no inflammable materials are stored in and around the worship areas.
(d) The height of the Idol proposed to be installed should not exceed 10 feet including the base and the dais.
(e) Installation of Idols near other religious places / hospitals / educational institutions should be avoided.
(f) Sound Amplifier (Mike) License would be granted only for two hours in the morning and two hours in the evening, during Pooja. Cone type speakers are prohibited and only box type speakers should be used.
Public Address System should not exceed the prescribed noise decibel limit and in the event any music is played, the music should not exceed the prescribed noise decibel limit.
(g) The organisers should ensure that no illegal activities take place under the garb of Vinayakar worship including unauthorized tapping and / or pilferage of electricity.
(h) No flex boards in support of any political party or communal leader shall be erected at the premises of the programme.
(i) Organisers should depute two volunteers round the clock for safety of the Idol. The installation places of Idol should be properly illuminated. Generator set may be provided in case of power failure.
(j) Shouting of slogans inciting communal hatred and affecting the sentiments of other religions shall not be permitted at any cost.
(k) The organisers should strictly follow any other conditions laid down by the Revenue / Police Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board authorities in the interest of maintaining public peace, public safety and communal harmony.
(l) Vinayakar Idols installed in the public places for worship should be taken out for immersion within five days from the date of installation.
(m) Vinayakar Idol immersion procession should be taken out before 1200 hours on the specified day in the approved routes prescribed by the Police through vehicles and immersed in the designated places in an http://www.judis.nic.in 20/48 W.P.Nos.22575 & 22669 of 2017 orderly manner. Wherever possible, the procession should be taken out through the routes by-passing the mosques / churches, as stipulated by the Police authorities.
(n) Four wheelers, (i.e.), mini lorry / tractor should only be used for carrying the Idols. Bullock cart / fish cart/ three wheelers would not be permitted.
(o) Capacity of participants travelling in the vehicle carrying Vinayakar Idol should be in accordance with the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.
(p) Bursting of crackers at the Vinayakar Idol installation places / immersion points / procession routes should not be allowed.
(q) Worship materials like flowers, clothes, decorating material (made of paper and plastic), etc., should be removed before immersion of Idols.
(r) In case of appeal against the order of permission issuing authority, it lies with the Commissioner of Police in Police Commissionerates and District Collector in other cases.
P. SENTHILKUMAR, Principal Secretary to Government (FAC).
// TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER
17. Contentions of the writ petitioner, assailing the constitutional validity of Guideline No.1(i) are that no land owner would give permission for installation of vinayakar idols, in front of his house, and therefore, it is violative of the Constitution of India, cannot be accepted.
18. Writ petitioner has no constitutional or statutory right, to infringe the rights of a land owner, without his written consent, to install any idol, much less vinayagar statue in front of his house. If there is infringement of a right to property, owner of the property, can always bring it to the notice of the law enforcing authority, or any other competent authority, as the case may be to protect his right to property. Apprehension of the petitioner that cases would be registered against a person, installing vinayakar idol, in front of his house, cannot be http://www.judis.nic.in 21/48 W.P.Nos.22575 & 22669 of 2017 countenanced.
19. Certainly, if the land is a public land, it requires permission from the local bodies concerned / Highways or the department. Petitioner has no statutory or constitutional right, to install any idol, much less, vinayakar idol, without, No Objection Certificate from the local body / Highways or Department. For the abovesaid reasons, challenge to Guideline No.1(i) has to fail and accordingly, we hold that the same, as not, unconstitutional of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India.
20. Guideline No.1(iii), states that any organizer intending to install any idol should obtain a "No Objection Certificate from the Fire and Rescue Services", to the effect that temporary structures erected should adhere to the fire safety standard. Said aspect has been consider by the Hon'ble Division Bench.
21. As per Guideline No.15, Vinayakar Idols installed in the public places for worships should be taken out for immersion within five days from the date of installation.
22. In support of the above, petitioner has contended that in Maharastra, it is for a longer period. Time period that idol must be installed in a particular day, and should be immersed within a specified period cannot be ascertained, in a writ. If the petitioner contends that a minimum of ten days is required, then, substantiating facts, circumstances and evidence, it could be done only in a suit. Nothing has been produced that the time period, is an indicative part of religion, for which, a protection order has to be granted.
23. State is under the obligation to maintain public peace, tranquility, regulation of traffic and control of pollution, which factors have been taken note of, while framing the guidelines, got installation of vinayakar idols, worship and immersion thereof. Condition No.15 of the guidelines cannot be said to be violative of Articles 25 & 26 of the Constitution of India. What is stated as regards period and practice in the State of Maharastra cannot be imported to State of Tamil Nadu. For http://www.judis.nic.in 22/48 W.P.Nos.22575 & 22669 of 2017 illustration, Durga Pooja is celebrated for 8 days in West Bengal, and not in Tamil Nadu. There is no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
24. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Government Order viz., G.O.Ms.No.598, Public, (Law & Order.B) Department dated 09.08.2018, ought to have been issued, restricting only to the registered organisations / bodies, cannot be countenanced, for the reason that, any person, intending to install and immerse vinayakar idols thereof, can do so, and restricting the same only to the registered bodies, would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, in the common order made in W.P.Nos.21953 and 22240 of 2017 dated 23.08.2017, has already considered all the issues regarding, public peace, tranquility, public safety, regulation of traffic, safety measures, contemplated under the regulations of TANGEDCO and directed the authorities, to issue the guidelines.
25. For the reasons stated supra, we are not inclined to interfere with the guidelines, issued in implementation of the directions of this Court. Writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition is closed."
7. Further, the review filed by Vinayagar Chathurthi Madhyakuzhu rep. by its Trustee in Review Application SR No.74443 of 2019, has also been dismissed by us on 28.06.2019. Order reads as follows:
"2. Before adverting to the grounds of review, we deem it fit to consider few decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, on the aspect of review,
(i) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lily Thomas v. Union of India, reported in 2000 (6) SCC 224, while considering the scope of http://www.judis.nic.in 23/48 W.P.Nos.22575 & 22669 of 2017 review and the limitations imposed on its exercise under, Article 137 of the Constitution of India, held as follows:
“52. The dictionary meaning of the word "review" is the act of looking, offer, something again with a view to correction or improvement. It cannot be denied that the review is the creation of a statute. This Court in Patel Narshi Thakershi & Ors. Vs. Pradyunmansinghji Arjunsinghji [AIR (1970) SC 1273], held that the power of review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. The review is also not an appeal in disguise. It cannot be denied that justice is a virtue which transcends all barriers and the rules or procedures or technicalities of law cannot stand in the way of administration of justice. Law has to bend before justice. If the Court finds that the error pointed out in the review petition was under a mistake and the earlier judgment would not have been passed but for erroneous assumption which in fact did not exist and its perpetration shall result in miscarriage of justice nothing would preclude the Court from rectifying the error. This Court in S.Nagaraj & Ors.etc. Vs. State of Karnataka & Anr.etc. [1993 Supp. (4) SCC 595] held:
"19. Review literally and even judicially means re-
examination or re-consideration. Basic philosophy inherent in it is the universal acceptance of human fallibility. Yet in the realm of law the courts and even the statutes lean strongly in favour of finality of decision legally and properly made. Exceptions both statutorily and judicially have been carved out to correct accidental mistakes or miscarriage of justice. Even when there was no statutory provision and no rules were framed by the highest court indicating the circumstances in which it could rectify its order the courts culled out such power to avoid abuse of process or miscarriage of justice. In Raja Prithwi Chand Law Choudhury v. Sukhraj Rai [AIR 1941 FC 1] the Court observed that even though no rules had been framed permitting the highest Court to review its order yet it was http://www.judis.nic.in 24/48 W.P.Nos.22575 & 22669 of 2017 available on the limited and narrow ground developed by the Privy Council and the House of Lords. The Court approved the principle laid down by the Privy Council in Rajunder Narain Rae v. Bijai Govind Singh (1836) 1 Moo PC 117 that an order made by the Court was final and could not be altered:
'...nevertheless, if by misprision in embodying the judgments, by errors have been introduced, these Courts possess, by Common Law, the same power which the Courts of record and statute have of rectifying the mistakes which have crept in.... The House of Lords exercises a similar power of rectifying mistakes made in drawing up its own judgments, and this Court must possess the same authority. The Lords have however gone a step further, and have corrected mistakes introduced through inadvertence in the details of judgments; or have supplied manifest defects in order to enable the decrees to be enforced, or have added explanatory matter, or have reconciled inconsistencies.” Basis for exercise of the power was stated in the same decision as under:
'It is impossible to doubt that the indulgence extended in such cases is mainly owing to the natural desire prevailing to prevent irremediable injustice being done by a Court of last resort, where by some accident, without any blame, the party has not been heard and an order has been inadvertently made as if the party had been heard.' Rectification of an order thus stems from the fundamental principle that justice is above all. It is exercised to remove the error and not for disturbing finality. When the Constitution was framed the substantive power to rectify or recall the order passed by this Court was specifically provided by Article 137 of the Constitution. Our Constitution-makers who had the practical wisdom to visualise the efficacy of such provision expressly conferred the substantive power to review any judgment or order by Article 137 of the Constitution. And clause (c) of Article 145 permitted this Court to frame rules as to the conditions subject to which any judgment or order may be reviewed. In exercise of this power Order http://www.judis.nic.in 25/48 W.P.Nos.22575 & 22669 of 2017 XL had been framed empowering this Court to review an order in civil proceedings on grounds analogous to Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. The expression, for any other sufficient reason in the clause has been given an expanded meaning and a decree or order passed under misapprehension of true state of circumstances has been held to be sufficient ground to exercise the power. Apart from Order XL Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules this Court has the inherent power to make such orders as may be necessary in the interest of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of Court. The Court is thus not precluded from recalling or reviewing its own order if it is satisfied that it is necessary to do so for sake of justice."
The mere fact that two views on the same subject are possible is no ground to review the earlier judgment passed by a Bench of the same strength.
53. This Court in M/s.Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. Vs. Lt.Governor of Delhi [AIR 1980 SC 674] considered the powers of this Court under Article 137 of the Constitution read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC and Order 40 Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules and held:
"It is well settled that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment delivered by this Court merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. The normal principle is that a judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so. Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (1965) 1 SCR 933 at p.948. For instance, if the attention of the Court is not drawn to a material statutory provision during the original hearing.
G.L. Gupta v. D.N. Mehta, (1971) 3 SCR 748 at p.760. The Court may also reopen its judgment if a manifest wrong has been done and it is necessary to pass an order to do full and effective justice. O.N.Mohindroo v. Dist. Judge, Delhi, (1971) 2 SCR 11 at p.27. Power to review its judgments has been conferred on the Supreme Court by Art.137 of the http://www.judis.nic.in 26/48 W.P.Nos.22575 & 22669 of 2017 Constitution, and that power is subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or the rules made under Art.145. In a civil proceeding, an application for review is entertained only on a ground mentioned in O. XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and in a criminal proceeding on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record. (Order XL, R.1, Supreme Court Rules, 1966). But whatever the nature of the proceeding, it is beyond dispute that a review proceeding cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case, and the finality of the judgment delivered by the Court will not be reconsidered except where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. Chandra Kanta v. Sheikh Habib (1975) 3 SCR 935."
54. Article 137 empowers this Court to review its judgments subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or any rules made under Article 145 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court Rules made in exercise of the powers under Article 145 of the Constitution prescribe that in civil cases, review lies on any of the ground specified in Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure which provides:
"Application for review of judgment -(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved -
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which, no appeal has been preferred.
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order."
Under Order 40 Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules no review lies except http://www.judis.nic.in 27/48 W.P.Nos.22575 & 22669 of 2017 on the ground of error apparent on the face of the record in criminal cases.” Though the reported judgment deals with the powers of the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Article 137 of the Constitution of India, principles enunciated apply to the exercise of powers by a High Court, when review of a judgment is sought for.
(ii) In Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aibam Pishak Sharma , reported in AIR 1979 SC 1047, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, "there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate powers which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court."
(iii) In yet another decision in Rajindersingh v. Lt. Governor reported in 2005 (13) SCC 289, at paragraph Nos.15 and 16, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that law is well settled that the power of judicial review of its own order by the High Court inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice. Power of judicial review extends to correct all errors to prevent miscarriage of justice. It was further held that Courts should not hesitate to review their own earlier order, when there exists an error on the face of record and the interest of http://www.judis.nic.in 28/48 W.P.Nos.22575 & 22669 of 2017 justice so demands in appropriate cases.
(iv) In Union of India v. Kamal Sengupta reported in 2008 (8) SCC 612, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at Paragraphs 14 and 15, held that, "14. At this stage it is apposite to observe that where a review is sought on the ground of discovery of new matter or evidence, such matter or evidence must be relevant and must be of such a character that if the same had been produced, it might have altered the judgment. In other words, mere discovery of new or important matter or evidence is not sufficient ground for review ex debito justiciae. Not only this, the party seeking review has also to show that such additional matter or evidence was not within its knowledge and even after the exercise of due diligence, the same could not be produced before the Court earlier.
15. The term `mistake or error apparent' by its very connotation signifies an error which is evident per se from the record of the case and does not require detailed examination, scrutiny and elucidation either of the facts or the legal position. If an error is not self-evident and detection thereof requires long debate and process of reasoning, it cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record for the purpose of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC or Section 22(3)(f) of the Act. To put it differently an order or decision or judgment cannot be corrected merely because it is erroneous in law or on the ground that a different view could have been taken by the Court/Tribunal on a point of fact or law. In any case, while exercising the power of review, the concerned Court/Tribunal cannot sit in appeal over its judgment/decision."
(v) By referring to various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court, a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, in Infant Jesus Teacher Training vs. M.Manikandan (Rev.Appn.No.38 of 2010 in W.A.No.1145 of 2009, dated 31.08.2010), considered the scope of review and at paragraphs 14, 31 and 32, held as follows:-
“14.Considering the scope of review jurisdiction and holding "mistake or error apparent on the face of the record must be self evident http://www.judis.nic.in 29/48 W.P.Nos.22575 & 22669 of 2017 and does not require a process of reasoning, in Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, ((1997) 8 SCC 715), the Supreme Court has held as under:
"7. It is well settled that review proceedings have to be strictly confined to the ambit and scope of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. of A.P.(AIR 1964 SC 1372 = (1964) 5 SCR 174) (SCR at p. 186) this Court opined:
“What, however, we are now concerned with is whether the statement in the order of September 1959 that the case did not involve any substantial question of law is an error apparent on the face of the record. The fact that on the earlier occasion the Court held on an identical state of facts that a substantial question of law arose would not per se be conclusive, for the earlier order itself might be erroneous. Similarly, even if the statement was wrong, it would not follow that it was an error apparent on the face of the record, for there is a distinction which is real, though it might not always be capable of exposition, between a mere erroneous decision and a decision which could be characterised as vitiated by error apparent. A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error.” ......
31. The review proceeding is not by way of an appeal. Holding that the review must be confined to error apparent on the face of the record and re-appraisal of the entire evidence on record for finding the error would amount to exercise of Appellate Jurisdiction, which is not permissible, in Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, (1995) 1 SCC 170, the Supreme Court held as under:
"8. It is well settled that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47, Rule 1, CPC. In connection with the limitation of the powers of the court under Order 47, Rule 1, while dealing with similar jurisdiction available to the High Court while seeking to review the orders under http://www.judis.nic.in 30/48 W.P.Nos.22575 & 22669 of 2017 Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court, in the case of Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma ((1979 (4) SCC 389), speaking through Chinnappa Reddy, J., has made the following pertinent observations: (SCC p. 390, para 3) “It is true as observed by this Court in Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1963 SC 1909), there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude the High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate power which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court.
9. Now it is also to be kept in view that in the impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court has clearly observed that they were entertaining the review petition only on the ground of error apparent on the face of the record and not on any other ground. So far as that aspect is concerned, it has to be kept in view that an error apparent on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions. We may usefully refer to the observations of this Court in the case of Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale (AIR 1960 SC
137), wherein, K.C. Das Gupta, J., speaking for the Court has made the http://www.judis.nic.in 31/48 W.P.Nos.22575 & 22669 of 2017 following observations in connection with an error apparent on the face of the record:
“An error which has to be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. Where an alleged error is far from self-evident and if it can be established, it has to be established, by lengthy and complicated arguments, such an error cannot be cured by a writ of certiorari according to the rule governing the powers of the superior court to issue such a writ."
32. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 1960 SC 137, (SATYANARAYAN LAXMINARAYAN HEGDEVS. MALLIKARJUN BHAVANAPPA TIRUMALE), the error must be apparent on the face of the record i.e., error must be self-evident and not which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning or which has to be searched. In other words, it must be an error and it must be one which must be manifest on the face of the record. Under the guise of review, parties are not entitled to rehearing of the same issue. An error can be said to be apparent on the face of the record only if such error is patent and can be located without any elaborate argument and without any scope for controversy with regard to such error, which stares at the face even by a mere glance of the judgement. The said position of law is reiterated in the decisions reported in (1997) 8 SCC 715, DELHI ADMINISTRATION VS. GURDIP SINGH UBAN AND OTHERS (2001(1) MLJ 45 (SC)), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BAORD VS. HITECH ELECTROTHERMICS HYDROPOWER LTD. AND OTHERS ((2005) 6 SCC 651), HARIDAS DAS VS. USHA RANI BANK (2006(4) SCC 78) and STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS VS. KAMAL SENGUPTA ((2008) 8 SCC 612).”
3. Keeping in mind the well settled propositions of law, set out supra, we deem it further to consider the grounds of review.
4. Earlier, when one Mr.S.Sudalaiyandi, a practising Advocate, has http://www.judis.nic.in 32/48 W.P.Nos.22575 & 22669 of 2017 filed W.P.No.22911 of 2018, to call for the records, in G.O.Ms.No.598, Public (Law & Order.B) Department, dated 9/8/2018, and to quash Condition Nos.1 (i), (iii) and 15, as unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India, after considering the rival submissions of the parties therein, we passed a detailed order.
Paragraph Nos.18 to 24 of the order made in W.P.No.22911 of 2018 are reproduced hereunder:-
“18. Writ petitioner has no constitutional or statutory right, to infringe the rights of a land owner, without his written consent, to install any idol, much less vinayagar statue in front of his house. If there is infringement of a right to property, owner of the property, can always bring it to the notice of the law enforcing authority, or any other competent authority, as the case may be to protect his right to property. Apprehension of the petitioner that cases would be registered against a person, installing vinayakar idol, in front of his house, cannot be countenanced.
19. Certainly, if the land is a public land, it requires permission from the local bodies concerned / Highways or the department. Petitioner has no statutory or constitutional right, to install any idol, much less, vinayakar idol, without, No Objection Certificate from the local body / Highways or Department. For the abovesaid reasons, challenge to Guideline No.1(i) has to fail and accordingly, we hold that the same, as not, unconstitutional of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India.
20. Guideline No.1(iii), states that any organizer intending to install any idol should obtain a "No Objection Certificate from the Fire and Rescue Services", to the effect that temporary structures erected should adhere to the fire safety standard. Said aspect has been consider by the Hon'ble Division Bench.
21. As per Guideline No.15, Vinayakar Idols installed in the public places for worships should be taken out for immersion within five days from the date of installation.
http://www.judis.nic.in 33/48 W.P.Nos.22575 & 22669 of 2017
22. In support of the above, petitioner has contended that in Maharastra, it is for a longer period. Time period that idol must be installed in a particular day, and should be immersed within a specified period cannot be ascertained, in a writ. If the petitioner contends that a minimum of ten days is required, then, substantiating facts, circumstances and evidence, it could be done only in a suit. Nothing has been produced that the time period, is an indicative part of religion, for which, a protection order has to be granted.
23. State is under the obligation to maintain public peace, tranquility, regulation of traffic and control of pollution, which factors have been taken note of, while framing the guidelines, got installation of vinayakar idols, worship and immersion thereof. Condition No.15 of the guidelines cannot be said to be violative of Articles 25 & 26 of the Constitution of India. What is stated as regards period and practice in the State of Maharastra cannot be imported to State of Tamil Nadu. For illustration, Durga Pooja is celebrated for 8 days in West Bengal, and not in Tamil Nadu. There is no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
24. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Government Order viz., G.O.Ms.No.598, Public, (Law & Order.B) Department dated 09.08.2018, ought to have been issued, restricting only to the registered organisations / bodies, cannot be countenanced, for the reason that, any person, intending to install and immerse vinayakar idols thereof, can do so, and restricting the same only to the registered bodies, would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, in the common order made in W.P.Nos.21953 and 22240 of 2017 dated 23.08.2017, has already considered all the issues regarding, public peace, tranquility, public safety, regulation of traffic, safety measures, contemplated under the regulations of TANGEDCO and directed the authorities, to issue the guidelines.” http://www.judis.nic.in 34/48 W.P.Nos.22575 & 22669 of 2017
5. Contending inter alia that W.P.No.22911 of 2018 has been filed, without making Hindu Munnani Organisation, as one of the respondents, in the said writ petition and proper facts have not been pleaded, Vinayagar Chathurthi Madhyakuzhu, represented by its Trustee, Mr.C.Parameswaran, has filed Review Petition Sr.No.74443 of 2019, seeking permission, to review the decision, made in W.P.No.22911 of 2018, on the following grounds:-
(i) The petitioner in W.P.No.22911 of 2018, has not properly placed the facts before this Court and it becomes necessary to place the entire facts and other legal issues before this Court, for better appreciation.
(ii) The grievance of the petitioner organisation is genuine and reasonable, needs to be considered by this Court, for proper appreciation of the issues.
(iii) Contention that Vinayagar idols are installed, on public streets and pavements, without any permission, flouting the pollution norms and causing traffic obstruction is far from truth. In fact, the police permission is obtained for each idol installed and also for the sound amplifiers and lights. If any idol is installed without police permission, the police will automatically remove the idol without even any notice.
(iv) Impugned order in W.P.No.22911 of 2018 that after obtaining police permission, another permission from Chennai Municipal Corporation is not practical. When the application has been given five days prior to the Police Commissioner and when the Police Commissioner grants permission, another application before the Municipal Corporation for permission will take another few days.
(v) In addition to the permission from Police Commissioner and City Municipal Corporation, clearance of the Fire Safety Authorities will take further time. This Court, ought to have considered that, clearance of fire safety authorities for thousands of idols which are temporary in nature could never be implemented for one simple reason, the fire services does not have enough man power.
http://www.judis.nic.in 35/48 W.P.Nos.22575 & 22669 of 2017
(vi) Permission from pollution control authorities have to be obtained also cannot be implemented practically, since the pollution control board does not have enough man power to do that.
(vii) This Court ought to have seen that getting approval or permission from various authorities such as municipal corporation, police, fire service and pollution control authorities is certainly an indirect ban on celebration of Vinayagar Chathurthi as a public function, which is nothing but interfering with religious rights.
(viii). When there is no enough man power to give permission in the Corporation, fire service department and the pollution control board, getting permission from all these authorities can never happen.
(ix). The impugned order that, idols should be made of pure clay is also an impractical one, since necessary quantity of clay to make thousands of idols that too with huge heights is certainly not available. Further, the idols made of clay will start cracking within a day or two.
(x). The order that the height of idol should not exceed ten feet is certainly interfering with the religious rights providing under Article 25 of the Constitution of India.
6. In addition to the above, Mr.K.Sridhar, learned counsel for the review petitioner submitted that the review petitioner has not committed any political crime and that constitutional rights guaranteed under Article 25 and 26, cannot be curtailed. He further added that the review petitioner, ought to have been heard before the Government Order is issued. On the above grounds and submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks review.
Heard Mr.K.Sridhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.
7. Petitioner, Vinayagar Chathurthi Madhyakuzhu, is a third party, to the writ petition, in W.P.No.22911 of 2018 and contending inter alia that the writ petitioner, Mr.S.Sudalaiyandi, in W.P.No.22911 of 2018 has http://www.judis.nic.in 36/48 W.P.Nos.22575 & 22669 of 2017 not put forth full particulars of the difficulties faced in Vinayagar Chathurthi Madhyakuzhu and that the review petitioner ought to have been made a party therein, instant review petition is filed with W.M.P.No.17204 of 2019, to grant leave.
8. On the averments and submissions, the following issues have to be answered.
(i) Whether the review petitioner, ought to have been made as a party respondent, in W.P.No.22911 of 20918, filed as a public interest writ petition.
9. Issue is clearly covered by the principle of Dominus litis that the writ petitioner in W.P.No.22911 of 2018, has a right to choose against whom, he can file a writ petition. Order impugned in W.P.No.22911 of 2018, is G.O.Ms.No.598, Public (Law & Order-B) Department, dated 09.08.2018, issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu. The respondents in W.P.No.22911 of 2018, were the Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Public (Law and Order) Department, Chennai; Director General of Police, Chennai and Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Vepery, Chennai, respondents 2 to 4, and in our view that they are necessary and proper parties to the lis. Review petitioner cannot as a matter of right, demand that they ought to have impleaded as one of the respondents in W.P.No.22911 of 2018. We deem it fit to consider few decisions,
(i) In Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Additional Member Board of Revenue, Bihar reported in AIR 1963 SC 786, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a necessary party is one without whom, no order can be made effectively, a proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceeding.
(ii) In the case before us, the necessary party is the State Government and the officials of the Police Department are the necessary and proper parties to implement the Government Order. Thus, they have http://www.judis.nic.in 37/48 W.P.Nos.22575 & 22669 of 2017 been rightly impleaded as party respondents and in the light of the decisions considered and the principles of law or the the principle of “Dominus Iitis”, we are of the view that there is no need to implead the writ petitioner.
(iii) In Management, Ratan Muni Jain Inter College and another v. III Additional Civil Judge, Agra reported in AIR 1995 All 7, the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, while dealing with the principle of ‘Dominus Litis’, held as follows:
“The theory of dominus litus should not be over stretched in the matter of impleading of parties, because it is the duty of the Court to ensure that if for deciding the real matter in dispute, a person is necessary party, the Court can order such person to be impleaded. Merely because the Plaintiff does not choose to implead a person is not sufficient for rejection of an application for being impleaded. The provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 (2) Code of Civil Procedure are very wide and the powers of the Court are equally extensive. Even without an application to be impleaded as a party, the Court may, at any stage of the proceedings order that the name of any party, who ought to have been joined whether as Plaintiff or Defendant or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added.”
(iv) In Mumbai International Airport (P) Ltd., v. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels (P) Ltd., reported in 2010 (7) SCC 417, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
“The general rule in regard to impleadment of parties is that the plaintiff in a suit, being dominus litis, may choose the persons against whom he wishes to litigate and cannot be compelled to sue a person against whom he does not seek any relief. Consequently, a person who is not a party has no right to be impleaded against the wishes of the plaintiff. But this general rule is subject to the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (“the Code”, for short), which http://www.judis.nic.in 38/48 W.P.Nos.22575 & 22669 of 2017 provides for impleadment of proper or necessary parties.
10. In the light of the decisions considered, it is the prerogative of a party to file a petition, by arraying necessary and proper parties to the lis. Contention to the contra, made in this review petition is rejected.
11. The second issue raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner to be considered is that opportunity of hearing should have given to the review petitioner or for the matter any other person likely to be affected before issuing G.O.Ms.No.598, Public (Law & Order.B) Department, dated 9/8/2018. Entry I to List II (State List) of the 7th Schedule to the Constitution of India deals with public order. Public Order, public safety are the exclusive domain of the State Government and in the case on hand, the Director General of Police, State of Tamil Nadu and Commissioner of Police, Chennai City, are the authorities to enforce the Government Order. For enforcing the Government Order, they have to given free hand. There is no perversity, arbitrariness or unreasonableness, in the Government Order.
12. At this juncture, we are also deem it fit to consider few decisions on public order, public safety and the authority of government to pass appropriate orders, in exercise of the powers conferred, under Article 162 of the Constitution of India, which states about the extent of executive power of the State. Article 162 of the Constitution of India, reads thus:-
“Extent of executive power of State – Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the executive power of a State shall extend to the matters with respect to which the Legislature of the State has power to make laws:
Provided that in any matter with respect to which the Legislature of a State and Parliament have power to make laws, the executive power of the State shall be subject to, and limited by, the executive power expressly conferred by this Constitution or by any law made by Parliament upon the Union or authorities thereof.” http://www.judis.nic.in 39/48 W.P.Nos.22575 & 22669 of 2017
13. Reading of Entry I to List II (State List) of the 7th Schedule to the Constitution of India and Article 162 of the Constitution of India makes it abundantly clear that Government of Tamil Nadu is empowered to issue executive orders which shall extend to the matters with respect to which the legislature of the State has power to make laws.
14. In Hochtief Gammon v. State of Orissa [(1975) 2 SCC 649 :
1975 SCC (L&S) 362 : AIR 1975 SC 2226], the Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.Alagiriswami, writing the judgment for a three-Judge Bench of this Court, explained the limitation on the powers of the executive in the following words, “13. The executive have to reach their decisions by taking into account relevant considerations. They should not refuse to consider relevant matter nor should they take into account wholly irrelevant or extraneous consideration. They should not misdirect themselves on a point of law. Only such a decision will be lawful. The courts have power to see that the executive acts lawfully.”
15. In Secretary, A.P.D. Jain Pathshala v. Shivaji Bhagwat More reported in 2011 (13) SCC 99, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at Paragraph 25, held thus, “25. Article 162 of the Constitution, no doubt, provides that subject to the provisions of the Constitution, the executive power of a State shall extend to the matters upon which the legislature of the State has competence to legislate and are not confined to matters over which legislation has been already passed. It is also well settled that so long as the State Government does not go against the provisions of the Constitution or any law, the width and amplitude of its executive power under Article 162 cannot be circumscribed; and if there is no enactment covering a particular aspect, the Government could carry on the administration by issuing administrative directions or instructions, until the legislature makes a law in that behalf.”
16. In Accountant General, State of Madhya Pradesh v.
http://www.judis.nic.in 40/48 W.P.Nos.22575 & 22669 of 2017 S.K.Dubey reported in 2012 (4) SCC 578, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at Paragraph 31, held as follows:
"31. Subject to the provisions of the Constitution, the executive power of a State extends to the matters with respect to which the legislature of the State has power to make laws. This is what is provided in Article 162 of the Constitution. In other words, the executive power of the State executive is coextensive with that of the State Legislature.”
17. Though Mr.K.Sridhar, learned counsel for the review petitioner submitted that Government of Tamil Nadu, ought to have put the petitioner, on notice, before issuing G.O.Ms.No.598, Public (Law & Order.B) Department, dated 9/8/2018, and that the said G.O., infringes the right, under Article 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. The said submission cannot be countenanced in law, for the reason that State is not obligated in the matter of public order, public safety, security, to issue notice, to any individual. State Government is empowered to issue orders, on the above subjects.
18. Police has a duty to maintain public order. Their powers cannot be curtailed, unless it is shown that exercise of such power is arbitrary, capricious and manifestly illegal, contrary to any statute or constitution of India, which on the facts and circumstances of this case, not substantiated by the review petitioner. In the light of the above discussion, we reject the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
19. As regards the alleged violations of rights guaranteed, under Article 25 & 26 of the Constitution of India, we deem it fit to extract the provisions:-
“25. Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion – (1) Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion.
(2). Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing http://www.judis.nic.in 41/48 W.P.Nos.22575 & 22669 of 2017 law or prevent the State from making any law -
a. regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice;
b. providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus.
Explanation I – The wearing and carrying of kirpans shall be deemed to be included in the profession of the Sikh religion.
Explanation II- In sub-clause (b) of clause (2), the reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed accordingly.
26. Freedom to manage religious affairs – Subject to public order, morality and health, every religious denomination or any section thereof shall have the right -
a. to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes;
b. to manage its own affairs in matters of religion; c. to own and acquire movable and immovable property; and d. to administer such property in accordance with law.”
20. Contention that there is a violation of constitutional rights stated supra, has already been addressed, in our decision, made in W.P.No.22911 of 2018, dated 5/9/2018. Relevant portions are extracted supra.
21. Sum and substance of the petitioner in the review petition is the difficulties expressed in getting permission from various authorities. Opening sentence of Article 25 of the Constitution of India is that freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion, is subject to public order and health to the other provisions of part III of the Constitution of India. Thus, rights guaranteed under Article 25 of the http://www.judis.nic.in 42/48 W.P.Nos.22575 & 22669 of 2017 Constitution of India, is subject to public order.
23. In the case on hand, rights exercised guaranteed Article 25 of the Constitution, is not wholly prohibited. Exercise of rights in the matter of taking idols and immersion is only regulated, which the Government is empowered to do so. Religious practice is not prohibited. Difficulties expressed in getting permission, cannot be a reason to quash G.O.Ms.No.598, Public (Law & Order.B) Department, dated 9/8/2018.
24. Let us consider the meaning of "public order". Though in State of U.P and another vs. Sanjai Pratap Gupta Alias Pappu and others, reported in (2004) 8 SCC 591, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with a case of a detenue, as to whether, his activities amounted to prejudicial to public order, warranting detention, the Hon'ble Apex Court explained the difference of law and order and public order. At paragraph Nos.7 to 13, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, observed as hereunder:-
"7. The crucial issue is whether the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to public order. While the expression “law and order” is wider in scope inasmuch as contravention of law always affects order, “public order” has a narrower ambit, and public order could be affected by only such contravention which affects the community or the public at large. Public order is the even tempo of life of the community taking the country as a whole or even a specified locality. The distinction between the areas of “law and order” and “public order” is one of degree and extent of the reach of the act in question on society. It is the potentiality of the act to disturb the even tempo of life of the community which makes it prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. If a contravention in its effect is confined only to a few individuals directly involved as distinct from a wide spectrum of public, it could raise problem of law and order only. It is the length, magnitude and intensity of the terror wave unleashed by a particular eruption of disorder that helps to distinguish it as an act affecting “public order” from that concerning “law and order”. The question to http://www.judis.nic.in 43/48 W.P.Nos.22575 & 22669 of 2017 ask is: “Does it lead to disturbance of the current life of the community so as to amount to a disturbance of public order or does it affect merely an individual leaving the tranquillity of the society undisturbed?” This question has to be faced in every case on its facts.
8. “Public order” is what the French call “ordre publique” and is something more than ordinary maintenance of law and order. The test to be adopted in determining whether an act affects law and order or public order, is: does it lead to disturbance of the current life of the community so as to amount to disturbance of the public order or does it affect merely an individual leaving the tranquillity of the society undisturbed? (See Kanu Biswas v. State of W.B. [(1972) 3 SCC 831 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 16 : AIR 1972 SC 1656] )
9. “Public order” is synonymous with public safety and tranquillity: “it is the absence of disorder involving breaches of local significance in contradistinction to national upheavals, such as revolution, civil strife, war, affecting the security of the State” [Ed.: See Supdt., Central Prison v. Ram Manohar Lohia, (1960) 2 SCR 821 at p. 839.] . Public order if disturbed, must lead to public disorder. Every breach of the peace does not lead to public disorder. When two drunkards quarrel and fight there is disorder but not public disorder. They can be dealt with under the powers to maintain law and order but cannot be detained on the ground that they were disturbing public order. Disorder is no doubt prevented by the maintenance of law and order also but disorder is a broad spectrum, which includes at one end small disturbances and at the other the most serious and cataclysmic happenings. [See Ram Manohar Lohia (Dr.) v. State of Bihar [(1966) 1 SCR 709 : 1966 Cri LJ 608] .]
10. “Public order”, “law and order” and the “security of the State” fictionally draw three concentric circles, the largest representing law and order, the next representing public order and the smallest representing security of the State. Every infraction of law must necessarily affect order, but an act affecting law and order may not http://www.judis.nic.in 44/48 W.P.Nos.22575 & 22669 of 2017 necessarily also affect public order. Likewise, an act may affect public order, but not necessarily the security of the State. The true test is not the kind, but the potentiality of the act in question. One act may affect only individuals while the other, though of a similar kind, may have such an impact that it would disturb the even tempo of the life of the community. This does not mean that there can be no overlapping, in the sense that an act cannot fall under two concepts at the same time. An act, for instance, affecting public order may have an impact that it would affect both public order and the security of the State. (See Kishori Mohan Bera v. State of W.B. [(1972) 3 SCC 845 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 30], Pushkar Mukherjee v. State of W.B. [(1969) 1 SCC 10 : (1969) 2 SCR 635], Arun Ghosh v. State of W.B. [(1970) 1 SCC 98 : 1970 SCC (Cri) 67 : (1970) 3 SCR 288] and Nagendra Nath Mondal v. State of W.B. [(1972) 1 SCC 498 : 1972 SCC (Cri) 227] )
11. The distinction between “law and order” and “public order” has been pointed out succinctly in Arun Ghosh case [(1970) 1 SCC 98 : 1970 SCC (Cri) 67 : (1970) 3 SCR 288] . According to that decision the true distinction between the areas of “law and order” and “public order” is “one of degree and extent of the reach of the act in question upon society”. The Court pointed out that: (SCC p. 100, para 3) “An act by itself is not determinant of its own gravity. In its quality it may not differ from another but in its potentiality it may be very different.” (See Babul Mitra v. State of W.B. [(1973) 1 SCC 393 :
1973 SCC (Cri) 353] and Milan Banik v. State of W.B. [(1974) 4 SCC 504 : 1974 SCC (Cri) 540] )
12. The true distinction between the areas of law and order and public order lies not merely in the nature or quality of the act, but in the degree and extent of its reach upon society. Acts similar in nature, but committed in different contexts and circumstances, might cause different reactions. In one case it might affect specific individuals only, and therefore touches the problem of law and order http://www.judis.nic.in 45/48 W.P.Nos.22575 & 22669 of 2017 only, while in another it might affect public order. The act by itself, therefore, is not determinant of its own gravity. In its quality it may not differ from other similar acts, but in its potentiality, that is, in its impact on society, it may be very different.
13. The two concepts have well-defined contours, it being well established that stray and unorganised crimes of theft and assault are not matters of public order since they do not tend to affect the even flow of public life. Infractions of law are bound in some measure to lead to disorder but every infraction of law does not necessarily result in public disorder. Law and order represents the largest scale within which is the next circle representing public order and the smallest circle represents the security of State. “Law and order” comprehends disorders of less gravity than those affecting “public order” just as “public order” comprehends disorders of less gravity than those affecting “security of State”. (See Kuso Sah v. State of Bihar [(1974) 1 SCC 185 : 1974 SCC (Cri) 84], Harpreet Kaur v. State of Maharashtra [(1992) 2 SCC 177 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 370], T.K. Gopal v. State of Karnataka [(2000) 6 SCC 168 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 1037] and State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Yakub [(1980) 3 SCC 57 :
1980 SCC (Cri) 513 : (1980) 2 SCR 1158].)"
25. In view of the above discussion and decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there is no error apparent on the face of the record and the decision made in W.P.No.22911 of 2018, does not call for any review. We are of the view that petitioner has not made out a prima case, to grant leave in W.M.P.No.17204 of 2019 and hence, the same is dismissed.
26. Accordingly, Review Petition in SR.No.74443 of 2019 is rejected. No costs. Petition filed to dispense with the production of original order, made in W.P.No.22911 of 2018, dated 5/9/2018 is ordered."
8. In view of the above orders, instant writ petitions are dismissed. No Costs.
http://www.judis.nic.in 46/48 W.P.Nos.22575 & 22669 of 2017 [S.M.K., J.] [S.P., J.] 31.07.2019 Index: Yes Internet: Yes Speaking / Non-speaking Order ars/dm To
1. The Director General of Police, O/o. Director General of Police, Rajaji Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004.
2. The Commissioner of Police, O/o. The Commissioner of Police, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.
3. The Home Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai.
4. The Home Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi - 110 001.
5. The Chief Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai.
http://www.judis.nic.in 47/48 W.P.Nos.22575 & 22669 of 2017 S.MANIKUMAR, J.
AND SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.
ars/dm W.P.Nos.22575 & 22669 of 2017 31.07.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in 48/48