Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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. 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 Thamthai Periyar E.V. Ramaswami and a Committee was formed in this behalf under the Chairmanship 6f C.P. 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 in Municipal S.No. 1974/2 in, Survey Ward, No. 4, Block No. 25. The requisite application, therefor, 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 30-9-1974 by resolution. No. 459, the Municipal Council accepted the said application and resolved to give permission for the installation of the statue. On 7-6-1975, the Divisional Engineer, Highways, Cheengalpattu, 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 30-6-1975 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 5-7-1975, the Municipal Council directed the said Rangan to deposit 20 per cent of the cost of the statue. On 15-7-1975, 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 Dep. 1975. While so, there were certain objections by their parties for the installation of the statue in the, concerned place. On 27-8-1976, 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 6-5-1978, 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 28-61978, the following particulars were called for from the petitioner:

"5. The applicant Thiru C.P. Rajamanickam, 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 Kanchipuram. in the year 1975. For erection of a 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 dt.11-4-1977.

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 Kanchipuram may be granted by Government at an early date."

On 13-10-1978, 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 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 8-11-1978 declining the request of the petitioner for the installation of the statue at the concerned place. On 16-11-1978, 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 1and 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 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 S. 61 of the Act is only for the purpose of maintenance, repairs and improvements of public streets as street 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 primary estoppel could not be put against the State so as to negate the order which the State has rightly passed on 13-10-1978.