Madras High Court
Nakkheeran Gopal vs The Chief Secretary on 12 October, 2012
Author: K.Chandru
Bench: K.Chandru
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 12.10.2012 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.No.15444 of 2012, M.P.No.1 of 2012 and Contempt Petition No.1040 of 2012 Nakkheeran Gopal Founder Chinnakuthoosi Memorial Trust .. Petitioner in both petitions Vs. 1.The Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St.George,Chennai - 600 009. 2.The Superintendent, District Library Office, Chennai - 600 002. 3.The Secretary, Devaneya Pavanar Arangam, LLA Building, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002 .. Respondents in W.P.No.15444/2012 1.Mr.Matheswaran, Superintendent and Secretary, District Library Office, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002. 2.Mrs.Veni, The Secretary and Supervisor, Devaneya Pavanar Arangam, LLA Building, Anna Salai, Chennai -2. .. Respondents in Cont.P.No.1040/2012 Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of mandamus, directing the second respondent to grant permission to conduct the meeting to be held on 15.06.2012 at 6.00 p.m in Devaneya Pavanar Arangam, (LLA Building), Chennai - 600 002. Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act to punish the respondents for committing contempt of court by wantonly disobeying the order dated 15.06.2012 made in M.P.No.1 of 2012 in W.P.No.15444 of 2012. For Petitioner : Mr.P.T.Perumal for M/s.Stalin Abhimanyu For Respondents : Mr.A.Navaneethakrishnan Advocate General Assisted by Mr.E.Sampath Kumar Spl.G.P. (Education) C O M M O N O R D E R
The writ petition was filed by the petitioner, seeking for a direction to the second respondent viz., Superintendent, District Library Office, Chennai to grant permission to conduct the meeting to be held on 15.06.2012 at 6.00 p.m in Devaneya Pavanar Arangam, (LLA Building), Chennai - 600 002.
2. The petitioner, Founder of the Chinnakuthoosi Memorial Trust organised a function to celebrate the 78th birth anniversary of Chinnakuthoosi, a Senior Journalist. The function was organised to honour one Pulavar Vetriazhagan for life time achievement and M/s.Pazha Adhiyaman, K.Elakkuvan and R.Uma, the winners of best Articles.
3. The petitioner had requested the Inspector of Police, Thousand Lights Police Station for the grant of permission to conduct the function and to provide Police protection. The petitioner also enclosed a copy of the invitation along with the requisition letter. Pursuant to the No Objection, an amount of Rs.8,000/- towards rental and electricity charges was paid by the Trust in the name of one V.Jambulingam, reserving the hall for the function to be held on 15.06.2012 between 6.00 p.m. and 9.00 pm. But on the date of function, viz., 15.06.2012, the second respondent called one Gopanna, one of the member of the Trust at 12.00 noon and informed him that the permission granted to the function was withdrawn. Despite the member of the Trust pleading to the authority seeking for a written order, the same was not furnished. Prior notice was also not given. Hence, the matter was moved urgently before this Court after seeking permission for special motion.
4. This Court after hearing Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandian, learned Additional Advocate General passed an interim direction and posted the matter for further orders on 19.06.2012. In paragraphs 4 and 5, this Court directed as follows:-
"4. When the matter was about to be taken up, it was brought to the notice by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the District Library Officer on behalf of the local Library authority by an order dated 14.06.2012 cancelled the permission granted on administrative grounds. The specious reason mentioned was that since text books will have to be distributed for the Group IV examination conducted by Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, meeting cannot be permitted. This reason is only stated to be rejected. The meeting is to be held on 15.06.2012 at 6.00 p.m for which already the second respondent had collected the amount and gave permission and the organisers have proceeded to print the invitation. Cancelling the permission around 3.00 p.m is totally unwarranted.
5. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, while ordering notice in the main writ petition, this Court grants direction to the petitioner to organise the function. The District Library Officer namely the Secretary to LLA Building, Devaneya Pavanar Arangam is hereby directed to permit the petitioner to conduct the meeting without any disturbance. Any deviation from this order will be viewed strictly."
5. The order copy was also furnished by 5.00 pm to the learned counsel for the petitioner. This Court also directed the learned Special Government Pleader, who assisted the Additional Advocate General to inform the authorities.
6. Notwithstanding the same, an office letter said to have been passed on 14.06.2012 by the second respondent was produced before this Court, wherein, it was stated that since Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission was conducting an examination for Group IV posts, they were intending to distribute books for use in Libraries between 3.00 to 7.00 pm on 15.06.2012, permission granted to the petitioner Trust was cancelled on administrative grounds. The Trustees were requested to come and collect the rental and electricity charges in person.
7. Mr.V.Jambulingam, the member of the Trust in whose name the letter dated 14.06.2012 was made has filed an affidavit stating that on 15.06.2012 around 3.00 pm, one of the Library staff visited his house and issued the cancellation notice and he gave the copy of the order to the Trustees. After sometime, the same staff came again with Rs.8,000/- and insisted him to take back the money which was the refund of the advance paid for the hall. It was emphasised by the Library Staff that since permission for conducting the function was cancelled, he has to receive the money and hence, he received the amount and informed the Trustees. Even though the writ petition was moved in the afternoon on 15.06.2012, the order cancelling permission granted to use the hall was never produced before this Court by either side.
8. It was stated that in view of the sudden cancellation of permission to use the hall, the Organizers did not have time to inform the public and other invitees about it. On the strength of the interim order passed by this Court, the Office bearers of ChinnaKuthoosi Memorial Trust went to the venue of the meeting at Devaneya Pavanar Arangam, LLA Building. By that time, invitees had come from different places were seated in the hall. But the person who was incharge of that hall requested all the guests to go out of the hall and announced that no one will be allowed to sit in the hall. At that time, another person came and locked the hall from outside. The Staff members of the Library suddenly disappeared. By that time, Chief Guest and Special Invitees, guests and others started to gather outside the hall. Having no other alternative, the members of the Trust were forced to conduct the function in the Car Parking area of the Library. Even the tube lights in the car parking area, which were normally was available were switched off. Hence, the organisers were forced to conduct the function utilizing the Head lights of the parked cars brought by them.
9. These facts were brought to the notice of this Court when the matter was listed on 19.06.2012. Therefore, this Court directed respondents 2 and 3 to file counter affidavit. Accordingly, a counter affidavit dated 19.06.2012 was filed by the third respondent viz., together with supporting typed set of papers. An additional counter affidavit was also filed on 27.06.2012.
10. In the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent, it was accepted that initially Local Library Authority gave permission to the Trust to conduct the function on 15.06.2012. Since Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) wanted to distribute books relating to Group IV examination, based on the decision taken in the District Library Officers meeting held on 08.06.2012, a decision was taken to cancel the meeting to be held on 15.06.2012. As per the District Library Officer letter dated 14.06.2012, the meeting organised by the Trust was cancelled for the reasons set out. Subsequently, the advance paid was also returned. Therefore, the review of development activities of the Libraries and distribution of TNPSC Competitive Examination books were conducted on 15.06.2012. TNPSC competitive Examination books was distributed to the circle and full time Branch Libraries functioning under Local Library Authority, Chennai at the Devaneya Pavanar Arangam. He admitted he was directed to give permission to the petitioner to conduct the meeting by the Special Government Pleader. They have already closed the distribution of the books. They have awaited for giving permission to the petitioner as per the oral instructions of the Law Officer. But no one turned on the side of the petitioner for booking the hall and to pay the rental charges.
11. In the additional counter affidavit filed by the third respondent, it was stated that they were waiting for the organisers up to 6.00 pm but no one came to Local Library Authority office for rebooking the hall. Since amount has already been returned, there was no question of denying permission. No on on behalf of the Local library authority asked the guest to stand outside the hall. Even though normal office hours is from 10.00 am to 5.45 pm, the office was closed only at 6.00 pm on that day and keys were handed over to Security Personnel at 6.00 pm. Function which held outside the hall near the car parking area came to the knowledge of the third respondent only on the next day morning. No one has switched off the tube lights on the said day.
12. If decision was taken to distribute the books, it is not clear as to how permission was given to the petitioner to organize the function and amount was received by the office on 08.06.2012. The Circular dated 14.06.2012 sent to the Librarians and the Library In-charge of all under the LLA requesting them to appear for distribution of the books on 15.06.20122 between 3.00 pm and 7.00 pm was itself only on 14.06.2012. It is not clear as to how the said letter was communicated to all the Libraries under the control of LLA. Even in that letter in the reference column, there was no reference to the meeting held by the District Library Officers of all Districts on 08.06.2012 and in that meeting, a decision was taken to distribute the books on 15.06.2012. This Court do not believe that the cancellation was done only because LLA had prior engagement for the use of the hall. Despite order being passed by this Court, there was a deliberate disobedience of the order issued by this Court. The petitioner aggrieved by the conduct of respondents 2 and 3 filed contempt petition No.1040 of 2012.
13. When that contempt petition came up on 26.07.2012, this Court directed the respondents to file counter in the contempt petition. Accordingly, counter affidavit was filed by the District Library Officer dated Nil July 2012. In the counter affidavit, he has admitted that he had received oral instructions from the Special Government Pleader regarding permission granted. But no one came to the office for rebooking the hall for making payment till 6.00 pm. The stand taken by the respondent cannot be believed because the next day, news papers clearly reported that the meeting was held in the car parking without any lights and that the lighting was made with the use of car head lights. The petitioner also produced copy of the news item appeared in the 'Hindu' Newspaper on 16.06.2012 as well as in the 'Theekadhir' Tamil Daily dated 16.06.2012. The petitioner has also produced the photographs taken at the function. The photographs clearly showed the hall locked and a Policeman was seen arguing with the organisers of the function. The photograph also showed that the guests who came in large numbers were sitting near the car parking and the persons who received the Award were also standing. If the intention of the respondents 2 and 3 was to permit the meeting as per the order of this Court, they could have given permission especially when the hall has been booked from 6.00 pm to 9.00 pm. As per the admission of the respondent, the hall itself was found locked at 6.00 pm. If the meeting has to take place from 6.00 pm onwards, the question of locking the hall by 6.00 pm will not arise. The large gathering of the invitees and the dignitaries clearly show that there was attempt to block the meeting by the respondents for reasons best known to them.
14. In the affidavit filed in support of the contempt petition, it was stated that Chinnakuthoosi was highly respected by journalist and he was a mentor for many journals in Tamil and English in South India. He had published many Tamil Political Books and articles. He passed away on 22.05.2011 and a Trust was formed in his memory. The Trust was doing many charitable activities and the function was organised to celebrate his 78th birth anniversary. Despite this Court granting permission, the respondents have refused to allow the function by stating that unless they produce the order copy, permission will not be granted and they had locked the hall from outside and the library staff disappeared from the place.
15. All these facts set out above clearly show that all is not well with the office of the third respondent. It must be noted that the third respondent is the Secretary of the Local Library Authority which functions from the library cess collected from the people of the State all over along with the property tax. Hence, the office of the Local Library Authority is a public office and functions as Trustee of the public funds. He cannot be allowed to act at his whims and fancies. Having allowed the organizers to conduct the function, he cannot refuse to give permission. The other purpose for which hall was requested is irrelevant as it is a normal activity and it could have been conducted in the library at the ground floor and there was no necessity to cancel the permission granted to conduct the function especially when rent of Rs.5500/- was collected. Therefore, it only makes one to believe the apprehension raised by the petitioner that the cancellation was done due to oblique motives and to please certain people who are operating from outside.
16. In order to find out the rules framed for allotment of the hall, this Court directed the learned Government Pleader to produce the copy of the Rules for allotment. Accordingly, rules known as guidelines for letting out the hall in the Library block as well as in the Symposium room was produced. It contains 8 Rules which are as follows:-
i) The Hall will be allowed for conducting educational, culture, literature and science related function alone.
ii) The Hall will be allowed for conducting meeting during Government holidays from 10.00 am to 9.00 pm and on other working days from 6.00 pm to 9.00 pm.
iii) No food will be allowed to serve in both the halls.
iv)If the hall was hired and meeting did not take place, the amount will not be refunded.
v) Registration of Hall will be made before 30 days of meeting.
vi)The Hall will be open 30 minutes before the commencement of the function.
vii) Organizers will have to conduct the meeting without any damage to the premises.
viii) If the meeting is not completed within the prescribed time, an additional amount will be charged.
ix) The District library Officer's decision is final in case of any dispute arising out of the conduct of the meeting.
No other guidelines were made in respect of allotment of the halls.
17. The Organizer is requested to sign an undertaking in terms of the conditions of allotment. But the Rules do not talk about the cancellation of the permission once granted as in the present case for any reason whatsoever. It is also not clear as to why any Organiser of the meeting should seek police permission from Thousand Lights Police Station for organising a meting inside the hall on higher charges.
18. In the present case, since permission to conduct the meeting on 15.06.2012 was already over, no relief can be given as sought for by the petitioner. However, the petitioner sought for certain guidelines to be framed for future meetings.
19. Under the said circumstances, since the two halls in the first floor of the LLA maintained out of public funds and the building itself was constructed out of the library cess collected from people all over the State and the authorities are only functioning as Trustees of the property, they should act without being influenced by any political or other extraneous considerations.
20. In the light of the above, this Court is inclined to frame the following guidelines to be followed by the third respondent in future.
a)Organisers of the meeting do not require any police clearance for conducting the meeting.
b)It is open to the Secretary of LLA to inform the police authorities about the conduct of the meeting, but certainly prior approval from the Thousand Lights police station is not a requirement to conduct a meeting.
c)Once the meeting is permitted to be conducted, the question of cancelling the permission will not arise except for reasons beyond control like natural calamities etc.,
21. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected MP is closed.
Contempt Petition No.1040 of 2012 This Court is not willing to accept the stand of the respondents since the respondents have clearly violated the order of this Court. Their only defence was that they have refunded the amount and no one has came forward to repay the same. It is a flimsy reason pleaded by the respondents. Though this court would have punished the respondents with appropriate punishment as provided under the Contempt of Courts Act, considering that the first respondents is working for more than 31 years and any punishment given will have telling effect on his service, this court lets out both the respondents by admonishing them. A direction will issue that they should adhere to fair norms in discharging their duties in future and not give room to complaints of the present nature. The Contempt Petition stands closed with the above observation.
svki To
1.The Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St.George,Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Superintendent, District Library Office, Chennai - 600 002.
3.The Secretary, Devaneya Pavanar Arangam, LLA Building, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002