Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. This writ appeal is directed against the order of Mohan, J. whereby the learned Judge quashed the proceedings of the appellant herein and the second respondent by which the request of the first respondent to install a statue of Thanthai Periyar E.V. Ramaswami, the Founder-Leader of Dravida Kazhagam at a particular place in the Municipal Town of Kancheepuram was declined. It will be convenient if we refer to the parties as they stood arrayed in the writ petition.

2. The first respondent herein was the petitioner, the second respondent was the first respondent and the appellant herein was the second respondent in the writ petition. In the year 1974, there was a decision by the members of the Chengalpattu District Dravida Kazhagam to install a statue of Thanthai Periyar E.V. Ramaswami and a Committee was formed in this behalf under the chairmanship of CP. Rajamanickam, President of the petitioner-Kazhagam, to install and erect the statue at Kancheepuram near Gangai Kondan Mandapam initially in Survey No. 1865 and subsequently changed to Municipal S. No. 1974/2 in Survey Ward No. 4, Block No. 25. The requisite application, there for was made through one P.A. Rangan, a member of the Kancheepuram Municipal Council, for sanction and permission and he undertook to bear the entire expense. On 30th September, 1974 by resolution No. 459, the Municipal Council accepted the said application and resolved to give permission for the installation of the statue. On 7th June, 1975, the Divisional Engineer, Highways, Chengalpattu, informed the first respondent that the local body should undertake the further maintenance of the statue, for which a resolution is required, and further the individual who intended to erect the statue should be directed to remit 20 per cent of the cost of the statue for future maintenance. On 30th June, 1975 by resolution No. 167, the Municipal Council resolved with reference to the proposal to install the statue that the Municipality agrees for the maintenance of the statue. On 5th July, 1975, the Municipal Council directed the said Rangan to deposit 20 per cent of the cost of the statue. On 15th July, 1975, a sum of Rs. 200 was deposited estimating the cost of the statue at Rs. 1,000. It is stated that the pedestal for the installation of the statue was erected in December, 1975. While so, there were certain objections by other parties for the installation of the statue in the concerned place. On 27th August, 1976, by resolution No. 310, the Municipal Council, taking note of the objections for the installation of the statue, resolved that no further action need be taken. On 6th May, 1978, the petitioner requested for early orders for the installation of the statue because that was the centenary year of Thanthai Periyar E.V. Ramaswami. On 28th June, 1978, the following particulars were called for from the petitioner: (i) The cost of the statue, (ii) The measurements and plan for the base of the statue, (iii) The topo sketch of the area around the site for about 300 feet. On 8th August, 1978, these particulars were furnished by the petitioner. On 22nd August, 1978, the petitioner deposited a further sum of Rs. 540 estimating the cost of the statue at Rs. 3,700. On 23rd August, 1978, by resolution No. 320, the Municipal Council resolved to grant permission for the erection of the statue after obtaining the no objection certificates from the concerned authorities and after obtaining the sanction of the second respondent. On 30th August, 1978, the Divisional Engineer, Highways, Chengalpattu, addressed the Superintending Engineer. Highways, Madras, recommending the erection of the statue. The Superintending Engineer, Highways, Madras, on 31st August, 1978, also made his recommendation to the Chief Engineer, Highways, Madras, for the erection of the statue and sought permission from the second respondent. Their opinion was that the erection of the statue will not be a hindrance to the free flow of traffic and it will also not affect the future widening of the street. On 13th September, 1978, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kancheepuram, reported that there was no objection for the erection of the statue in the concerned survey number which is classified as Town Site poramboke subject to the condition that the existing two encroachments should be evicted. On 13th September, 1978, the Superintendent of Police, Chengalpattu, also informed that there is no objection for the issue of a "No objection" Certificate to the applicant from the traffic and police point of view. On 13th September, 1978, the Collector of Chengalpattu, after referring to the above reports, made his recommendation in the following terms:

5. The applicant Thiru C.P. Rajarnanickam, President, Chengalpattu District Dravida Kazhagam has also remitted a sum of Rs. 740 being the 20% of the cost of Rs. 3,700 of the statue to the Municipal Office, Kancheepuram in the year 1975. For erection of statue of an eminent leader at public place prior approval of the Government should be obtained as per G.O. Ms. No. 560, Public Works Department, dated 1lth April, 1977.
6. In the circumstances explained above I recommend the above proposal and the permission sought for, by the Municipal Commissioner, Kancheepuram for installation of statue of 'Thanthai Periyar' at S. No. 1974/2 of Kancheepuram may be granted by Government at an early date.

On 13th October, 1978, the second respondent passed an order stating that the place chosen for the installation of the statue was not very much suitable; two or three other alternative sites might be suggested without involving any traffic hazards and the inscriptions on the statue should be I uncontroversial and in such case the matter could be considered. On the basis of this order of the second respondent the Municipal Council passed resolution No. 501 on 8th November, 1978 declining the request of the petitioner for the installation of the statue at the concerned place. On 16th November, 1978, this decision was communicated to the petitioner by the first respondent. This has given room for the petitioner to come to this Court seeking to quash the proceedings of respondents 1 and 2.

4. In this writ appeal directed against the order of the learned Judge Mr. R. Krishnamoorthy, learned Advocate General appearing for the second respondent appellant herein would primarily concentrate on a crucial aspect. As we have already stated the questions arising in the case are intermingled with one another and they have to be decided in a composite compass. The primary aspect argued by the learned Advocate General is that a municipality does not own public streets and the ownership continued with the State and the vesting of public streets and appurtenances in the Municipal Council under Section 61 of the Act is only for the purpose of maintenance, repairs and improvements of public streets as streets and nothing more and the Municipality is not the sovereign owner of the public streets and it must act strictly within the scope of its power; and installation of a statue in a public street either by itself or through another agency will not come within the scope of its powers for maintenance, repairs and improvements of public streets, and the' State as the sovereign owner thereof can always withhold its consent for such acts. It is pointed out that in the instant case, the State never gave its seal and sanction to the installation of the statue at the place concerned, and it cannot be held to be bound by the proceedings of the Municipality, whereby it is stated that the petitioner was given an assurance that the statue could be erected at the place concerned, and hence the principle of promissory estoppel could not be put against the State so as to negate the order which the State has rightly passed on 13th October, 1978.