Wednesday, August 26, 2015

Mad HC: Removal of Shivaji Ganesan Statue

Constitution of India, Art. 19(1)(d) - Erection of Statues in Public Roads - Erection of Statues in Public Roads - Public Roads not for erection of Statues - Roads cannot be converted for collateral purposes for erection Statues. (Para 29) (DOJ: 23-01-2014) (N.Srinivasan (died) P.Nagarajan Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Govt. (Highways Dept.) and 9 others) (Sathish K. Agnihotri and K.K.Sasidharan, JJ) (2014 (1) CTC 561, DB) (http://indiankanoon.org/doc/115954407/)

Also read the related stories

Tamil Nadu PR [Press Release No. TNLA No.002] - Statement No.002 of the Hon'ble Chief Minister as per Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Rule 110 to build a Manimandapam for Thiru Sivaji Ganesan: http://cms.tn.gov.in

Also read the FULL Judgment as follows:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS


DATED: 23.01.2014


CORAM: The Honourable Mr.Justice SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI and the Honourable Mr.Justice K.K.SASIDHARAN

W.P.No.22516 of 2006 & M.P.NO.1 of 2006

1. P.N. SRINIVASAN (DECEASED), 2. P. NAGARAJAN (P-2 SUBSTITUTED AS LR IN THE PLACE OF DECEASED PETITIONER AS PER ORDER DATED 3.10.2013 IN M.P.NO.1 OF 2010 IN W.P.NO.22516 OF 2006) ... PETITIONER 

Vs.

1. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REP. BY ITS SECY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHWAYS DEPT. FORT ST. GEORGE, CHENNAI   600 009. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (GENERAL), HIGHWAYS DEPT. CHENNAI   600 005. 3. THE COMMISSIONER, CORPORATION OF CHENNAI, RIPPON BUILDINGS, CHENNAI 600 003. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, EGMORE, CHENNAI - 600 008. 5. J.MOHANRAJ, (R5-IMPL AS PER ORD.DT.29/7/13 IN MP2/06). 6. K.CHANDRASEKARAN (R6-IMPL AS PER ORD.DT. 13/12/2013 IN MP 3/13). 7. C. SHIVAKUMAR (R-7- IMPL AS PER ORD.DT.17/12/13 IN MP 2/13). 8. AYANPURAM SHIVAJI BABU @ S. CHITTI BABU (R-8- IMPL AS PER ORD.DT.17/12/13 IN MP 4/13). 9. T.K.SATHIA SEELAN (R-9- IMPL AS PER ORD.DT.17/12/13 IN MP 5/13). 10. TAMIL SANGA PALAGAI, REP. BY ITS FOUNDER M.C. TAMIL PITHAN (R-10- IMPL AS PER ORD.DT.17/12/13 IN MP 6/13) ....RESPONDENTS

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to remove the statue of Sivaji Ganesan erected at three road junction of Kamarajar Salai-Radhakrishnan Salai opposite to Gandhi Statue on the National Highways to install the statue. (Prayer amended as per order dated 8 July 2013 in M.P.No.1 of 2009 in W.P.No.22516 of 2006).

For Petitioner: Mr.R. Gandhi, Senior Counsel for Mr.R.G. Narendhiran.

For Respondents : Mr.AL. Somayaji, Advocate General Assisted by Mr. S.T.S. Murthy, Govt. Pleader for RR 1, 2 and 4, Dr.C. Ravichandran for R.3, Mr.S. Prabaharan for Mr.T.P.Senthilkumar for R.6 Mr.T.Sivagnanasambandan for R.7 Mr.S. Ezhil Raj for RR 8 & 9 Dr. G.Krishnamoorthy for R.10.
O R D E R

SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J AND K.K.SASIDHARAN, J

Introductory:

The Governor of Tamil Nadu announced the policy decision taken by the Government of Tamil Nadu to erect a statue in memory of the versatile Actor late Padmabushan Sivaji Ganesan, opposite to the office of the Director General of Police at Kamarajar Salai, in his address in the Legislative Assembly on 24 May 2006. However, while erecting the statue the concerned authorities have ignored the place indicated in the address given by the Governor and erected it on the middle portion of an arterial road (in fact not near D.G.P. Office but opposite to Queen Mary's College) giving rise to a dispute and dragging the name of an artist of repute to the midst of a litigation.

A Brief Backdrop:-

2. This pro bono publico petition was originally filed for a direction, forbearing the Government of Tamil Nadu from in any way permitting or installing the statue of late Sivaji Ganesan, in the three road junction of Kamarajar Salai Radhakrishnan Salai, opposite to Gandhi Statue on the National Highways and a consequential direction to the authorities to provide an alternative place to install the statue.

3. The statue was installed on 12 July 2006. The petitioner therefore amended the prayer and now seeks a direction to remove the statue from its present location.

4. The writ petition was originally filed by a Gandhian, who took part actively in the freedom movement. The petitioner in his affidavit filed in support of the writ petition contended that the statue of Mahatma Gandhi at Marina was the creation of a well known sculptor. The statue is a centre of attraction.

5. The proposal to erect the statue of Sri. Sivaji Ganesan was opposed by the petitioner on two grounds, viz., that it would obstruct the view of Gandhi Statue and that it would violate the undertaking given by the Government of Tamil Nadu before the Supreme Court that no statue or structure would be erected on public road. During the currency of the writ petition, the writ petitioner died and his son was recognised as the legal representative to continue the litigation.

6. The Government wanted to unveil the statue on 21 July 2006. In view of the urgency, the writ petition was taken up for consideration on 19 July 2006. The Division Bench found that the State of Tamil Nadu has given an undertaking before the Supreme Court that no temporary or permanent structure which affects the free flow of traffic be allowed on main roads. In view of the undertaking given by the State Government, the learned Advocate General took time to approach the Supreme Court with a clarification application. The Division Bench while adjourning the matter by four weeks (so as to enable the State to approach the Supreme Court), made it clear that all actions taken by the Government henceforth would be subject to the orders of the Supreme Court. Thereafter the State moved the Supreme Court with a clarification application. The Supreme Court refused to clarify the order.

7. The Assistant Commissioner of Police (Traffic), Mylapore, pursuant to the order dated 23 October 2013 filed an affidavit indicating that on account of the location of statue the visibility of the motorists, who are intending to take right turn to Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai from Kamarajar Salai would be affected. The traffic Police opined that shifting the statue from the present location would help easy flow of traffic.

Submissions:

8. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that the Division Bench has already passed an order dated 19 July 2006 holding that the affidavit filed before the Supreme Court in K.K.Road Merchants v. District Collector (2004) 13 SCC 60 would apply equally to cases of encroachment, obstruction, etc., made on the road maintained by the Corporation and the local authorities. The clarification petition filed by the State has already been disposed of by the Supreme Court pointing out that no such clarification is necessary. The issue raised by the petitioner therefore is covered by the judgment in K.K.Road Merchants. The learned Senior Counsel contended that the statue of Sivaji Ganesan would obstruct the view of Gandhi Statue. The learned Senior Counsel further contended that the report submitted by the Traffic Police very clearly shows that the view of motorists would be affected on account of the location of statue. The learned Senior Counsel therefore wanted to shift the statue to some other place and to clear the place for free traffic movement.

9. The learned Advocate General appearing for respondents 1, 2 and 4 would submit that the State has no intention of shifting the statue from its present location.

10. Thiru S. Prabhakaran, learned counsel for respondent No.6 would submit that the Government has taken a policy decision to erect the statue of Dr.Sivaji Ganesan opposite to the office of Director General of Police. Accordingly, the statue was erected. It is not open to the successor Government to change such policy decision. The learned counsel contended that the statue would not in any way give hindrance to free flow of traffic. According to the learned counsel, the statue of late Sivaji Ganesan is not in front of the statue of Mahatma Gandhi and as such the contra contention taken in the writ petition has no factual basis. It was contended that, removal of statue would affect the sentiments of the people of Tamil Nad besides the fans of late Actor Sivaji Ganesah.

11. The learned counsel for the impleaded parties made similar submissions. According to them, the statue was erected to honour late Sivaji Ganesan and as such it is not proper for the Government to direct removal and re-erection of statue.

Analysis:

The issue:

12. The core issues that arise for our consideration is as to (1) whether the location of the statue of Sri. Sivaji Ganesan in the three road junction of Kamarajar Salai-Radhakrishnan Salai would violate the undertaking given by the State of Tamil Nadu before the Supreme Court, and (2) whether it would obstruct the clear vision of motorists and the free flow of vehicular traffic on the arterial road.

Earlier order dated 19 July 2006:

13. The issue regarding violation of the undertaking given before the Supreme Court has already been indicated by the Division Bench in its order dated 19 July 2006. The Division Bench was of the view that the undertaking would apply even to the City of Chennai. The relevant observation reads thus:

"9. We have carefully considered the above submissions and perusedorder of the Apex Court. Though that was a case relating to holding of public meetings, erecting any stage at a particular place namely K.K.Road, Villupuram, from the affidavit filed by the Secretary to Government, Home Department, it is clear that the averments in the affidavit are applicable to the City of Chennai as well. In paragraph-2 of the affidavit extracted by the Apex Court, it is stated that a reference has been made to Section 220 of theChennai City Municipal Corporation, 1919 which inter alia provides that no one shall build any wall or erect any fence or other obstruction or projection or make any encroachment in or over any street, the control of which is vested in the Corporation. The affidavit further proceeds by referring to Section 222 of the above said Act which provides that the Commissioner may by notice require the occupier to remove encroachment or obstruction in or over any street the control of which is vested in the Corporation. The affidavit also further proceeds that similar provisions are also available in other Acts relating to the Municipal Corporations of Madurai, Coimbatore, Tiruchirapalli, Salem and Tirunelveli in Tamil Nadu. It also refers to the provisions of Section 180 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 which provides that no one shall build any wall or erect any fence or other obstruction, or projection, or make any encroachment in or over any street except as provided in the said Act. It also refers to Section 180-A of the said Act which provides that all streets vested in or to be vested in or maintained by a municipal council shall be open to persons of whatever caste or creed. It further refers to Section 182(1) of the said Act, which provides that the executive authority may by notice require the owner or occupier of any premises to remove or alter any projection, encroachment or obstruction (other than a door, gate, bar or ground-floor window) situated against or in front of such premises and in or over any street.

10. On a plain reading of the above affidavit, we are of the prima facie view that the averments made in the said affidavit are not only applicable to the facts of that case, but also for encroachment, obstruction, etc. made on the roads maintained by the Corporation and the Local Authorities. When pointed out, the learned Advocate General requested the Court that the respondents/State may be given liberty to approach the Apex court for appropriate orders, directions or clarifications as to the applicability of the averments made by the Secretary to Government, Home Department, Government of Tamil Nadu before the Apex Court, which was recorded by the Apex Court and closed the Civil Appeal on the basis of the said affidavit. (emphasis supplied)

14. The State having convinced that the erection of statue on the main road would violate the undertaking given in K.K. Road Merchants case (2004(13) SCC 60) rightly moved the Supreme Court for clarification. It is a matter of record that the Supreme Court disposed of I.A. filed by the State for clarification by recording that no order is required for clarification of the Government Order dated 26 June 2006. The prima facie finding recorded by the Division Bench on 19 July 2006 has not been disturbed by the Supreme Court.

15. The road in question is maintained by the Highways department. The petitioner has taken up a substantial contention that the entire stretch of Kamarajar Salai has been declared as a road under Section 3 of the Highways Act 2001. The State Government in exercise of its powers underSection 4 of the Act issued a notification in G.O.Ms.110, Highways Department, dated 5 June 2003 declaring Chennai City Roads as a division for the purpose of the Highways. This contention was recorded by the Division Bench in its order dated 19 July 2006. The State has not denied this basic contention. The Kamarajar Salai is an arterial road which connects Parrys with other parts of City like Adayar, Mylapore, Thiruvanmiyur etc. This road connects ECR at Thiruvanmiyur. The office of Director General of Police, Light House, Queen Marry's College, Madras University, Legislative Assembly, Secretariat, Reserve Bank of India, etc., are situated on the side of this road. In fact this is the road leading to the High Court from various parts of the City.

16. The State of Tamil Nadu has filed a comprehensive undertaking before the Supreme Court. The undertaking would apply to all the local bodies in the State of Tamil Nadu. The solemn undertaking given by the then State Government would equally bind the successive Governments. The undertaking given before the Apex Court of the Country should be respected by one and all. A bare reading of the order in K.K.Road Merchants would make the position very clear that the State has unconditionally agreed to abstain from putting up permanent structures on main roads, affecting traffic. The undertaking reads thus:

I respectfully submit that in pursuance of the interim orders dated 29.7.2002 of this Hon ble Court in the above matter directing to take instructions to the effect that no temporary or permanent structure shall ever be allowed on a main road thereby blocking free movement of traffic, the subject was considered by the Council of Ministers of the State of Tamil Nadu in its meeting held on 19.9.2002, in which it was decided that no temporary or permanent structure which affects free flow of traffic be allowed on main roads. A copy of the minutes of the said meeting of the Council of Ministers is in Annexure I.

It is respectfully submitted that Section 220 of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919(Tamil Nadu Act 4 of 1919) inter alia provides that no one shall build any wall or erect any fence or other obstruction or projection or make any encroachment in or over any street, the control of which is vested in the Corporation. Further, Section 222 of the said Act provides that the Commissioner by notice require the occupier to remove encroachment or obstruction in or over any street the control of which is vested in the Corporation. Similar provisions are also available in other Acts relating to the Municipal Corporations or Madurai, Coimbatore, Tiruchirapalli, Salem and Tirunelveli in Tamil Nadu. It is also submitted that Section 180 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 (Tamil Nadu Act 5 of 1920) provides that no one shall build any wall or erect any fence or other obstruction, or projection, or make any encroachment in or over any street except as provided in the said Act. Section 180-A of the said Act provides that all streets vested in or to be vested in or maintained by a municipal council shall be open to persons of whatever caste or creed. Section 182(1) of the Said Act provides that the executive authority may by notice require the owner or occupier of any premises to remove or alter any projection, encroachment or obstruction (other than a door, gate, bar or ground floor window) situated against or in front of such premises and in or over any street. Relevant extracts of the said provisions of the said Acts are in Annexure II .

17. The learned counsel for respondent No.6 by placing reliance on the judgment in M.S. Arasa Kumar v. The Government of Tamil Nadu (2013) 1 CTC 533) submitted that the present Government has erected an arch on Kamarajar Salai and when a challenge was made, the High Court refused to interfere in the matter.

18. The arch to commemorate the Diamond Jubilee Celebration of Tami Nadu Legislative Assembly was constructed without obstructing the vehicular or pedestrian movement. Paragraphs 22 and 30 of the Judgement in M.S. Arasa Kumar would prove the distinguishing feature.

"22. Under Section 220 of Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, no one has got right to build any wall or erect any fence or other obstruction or projection or make any encroachment in or over any street. Section 220 thus prohibits obstruction or projection in streets. According to the Government, the proposed Arch in Rajaji Salai has been planned in such a way and has been designed structurally that there would not be any intermediate pillar/structure in the middle of the road and it will not pose any hindrance to the movement of vehicles. The width of Rajaji Salai is 18.70 meters and the said width will be maintained even after the construction of Arch to facilitate free flow of undivided four lane carriageway traffic as of now. It is stated that the clear height of Arch from the floor surface of the road will be 6.50 meters which is higher than the stipulated mandatory clearance required for structures like Arch. Before us the structural design of Arch has been produced. On a perusal of the design of Arch, it is seen that pillars supporting the Arch on both sides have been proposed to be located on the pavement of both sides of road. There will be an opening inside the pillars on both sides to facilitate the pedestrian movement. It is stated that Arch has been designed based on the Confluence of Greek and Latin Architecture inspired by the design cues and intricate patterns of the Fort St. George. When the Arch has been structurally designed without any intermediate pillars in the middle of the road and if the Arch would not affect free flow of traffic or pedestrian movement, it cannot be said that the proposed Arch in Rajaji Salai would be an obstruction or encroachment on a public street. By passing a resolution according permission for construction of Arch, it cannot be said that the Corporation of Chennai has exceeded its jurisdiction. It is also pertinent to note that Writ Petitioner neither impleaded the Corporation of Chennai nor challenged the resolution dated 29.10.2012 according permission for construction of Arch.

30. As pointed out earlier, Arch is proposed to be constructed with two pillars located on the pavement of both sides of the road and with opening inside pillars of both sides to facilitate pedestrian movement. The primary object of building the roads is to facilitate vehicles/people to travel from one place to another. The Corporation of Chennai has an obligation to maintain the roads and pedestrian paths for the benefit of general public. When the Arch is proposed to be constructed in commemoration of Diamond Jubilee Celebrations of Tamilnadu Legislative Assembly just near to Fort St. George where Tamilnadu Legislative Assembly is presently functioning, it cannot be said that the Arch proposed to be constructed would amount to hindrance to public. In the counter, the Government stated that the construction would be carried out in such a manner that it will not have any adverse impact on vehicular movement, safety, security or of access to the surroundings. Such being the position, the contention of Petitioner that construction of Arch at Rajaji Salai would be a hindrance to the vehicular movement is not sustainable.

19. The Supreme Court in Abdul Farook v. Municipal Council. Perambalur 2009(15) SCC 351 while setting aside the permission given by the Government of Tamil Nadu to construct two arches on the occasion of 57th Birthday celebrations of the Chief Minister observed that "the doctrine of good governance, requires the Government to rise above their political interest and act only in public interest and welfare of its people.

20. Thiru S. Prabhakaran, learned counsel for the sixth respondent by placing reliance on the judgment in State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Shyam Sundar 2011 (8) SCC 737 contended that a valid policy adopted by a Government should not be changed with the change of Government.

21. The decision in K. Shayam Sunder has no application to the facts of this case, for more than one reason. Here the policy was to erect the statue of Sri. Sivaji Ganesan opposite to the office of D.G.P. It was not to erect on the middle of public road. The authorities while implementing the decision changed the very location.

22. The Supreme Court in Jitendra Kumar v. State of Haryana (2007) 14 Scale 125 while re-iterating the legal position that the policy adopted by a particular Government should not be changed at the whims and fancies of the successive Government put a rider that the successive Government is not bound to follow the illegal decision taken by the earlier Government.

23. The present Government appears to have not taken any action to remove the statue. The present writ petition is at the instance of a citizen and the question is as to whether the erection of statue just on the middle of the road would affect vehicular traffic and the view of motorists. The petitioner wanted only shifting of statue to another convenient place for the purpose of clearing the road.

24. The Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, Traffic in his inspection report very clearly stated about the obstruction to the free traffic on account of the erection of this statue. The relevant paragraphs of the report read thus:

"5. It is submitted that because of the installation of the statue at the above mentioned place the visibility of the motorists who are intending to take right turn to Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai from Kamarajar Salai is affected. It is further submitted that the motorists who are intending to take right turn to Santhome High Road from Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai also have a chance to hit the motorists who are intending to take right turn to Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai from Kamarajar Salai as the statue is obstructing the visibility of motorists of both the sides.

6. I further submit that the motorists who are intending to proceed to Kamarajar Salai from Santhome High Road also likely to hit the pedestrians as the statue obstructs the visibility of the motorists from noticing the movement of pedestrians who are intending to cross from East to West at Kamarajar Salai.

7. It is further submitted that during night hours i.e. after 2300 hrs, the signal will be put on automatic mode without any traffic police personnel. Because of this the motorists tends to violate the signal and because of the obstruction of view due to the installation of this statue, number of accidents have taken place at this junction. For instance in the year 2012, 12 accidents including a fatal accident and during the current year (2013) so far 8 accidents have taken place at this junction.

8. It is further submitted that the motorists of Kamarajar Salai would get more space to take right turn if the statue is removed. I have the highest regard for the great actor and hence I am of the opinion that the statue may be shifted on the Marina Beach front along with the other statue which will have no impact on the movement of traffic and will ensure the safety of the motorists."

25. The learned counsel for the sixth respondent submitted that there is a Clock Tower located immediately after this statue and request was not made to remove the said tower. We have perused the sketch and plan of the area. The clock tower is placed in such a manner that it would not affect the visibility of motorists. The said tower has been in existence from time immemorial and in fact it operates as a junction point. Therefore we reject the contention regarding selective action taken by the petitioner to remove this statue alone.

Government Policy - must be for public good:

26. The Constitution of India guarantees right to move throughout the territory of India. This right under Article 19(1)(d) cannot be construed in a very narrow manner. It would cover all incidental rights which would make this constitutional right meaningful. Nobody has got a right to claim erection of permanent structures like statues on roads. The State is not an exception. The Government is for the people. Therefore any policy adopted by the Government must be for public good. The Government symbolises the will and wishes of people. The policy must reflect such social aspirations of the people. The Government have no special right to erect a statue on a public road. The regulations regarding prohibition of permanent structure like statues on roads would equally apply to the State. The fact that on occasions, the Government was permitted or action of Government was upheld, would not give a vested right to undertake similar actions at all point of time. The welfare of the public must be the paramount consideration of State. In case the policy of the State violates statutory provisions or offend the fundamental right given to the citizens, including equality clause, judicial review is permissible even in the field of Government policy. The immunity given to the policy would not be extended to the consequential actions which were not contemplated by the policy. In case while executing the policy the executive have gone beyond the policy adopted by the State in a particular subject matter, judicial review is available to prevent such transgressions.

27. The decision to honour public personalities, artists of repute, etc., must not be at the cost of public convenience. The public roads are nothing but public property. The roads are formed by acquiring land. The citizen is deprived of his land by the process of acquisition. The acquisition is justified in larger public interest. The roads constructed after such acquisition are for public purpose. It is only for the welfare and betterment of public all such developmental activities are undertaken. The people should be allowed to enjoy the benefits of such development. The National Highways and State Highways constructed by acquiring private property and by using public funds, can be used only for the travelling needs of public. It cannot be converted for other collateral purposes like erection of statues and memorials.

28. The Court exercises its jurisdiction in furtherance of justice. The Court should therefore interfere in case there is a complete apathy towards the common man and a cynical unconcern for the law of the land.

Public Roads not for erection of statues:

29. The roads and streets are meant for pedestrians and motorists. It is not meant for erection of statues. There is no dispute that the leaders and stalwarts should be respected in an appropriate manner. By erecting statues on the middle of public road, by giving difficulties to the motorists and general public, actually we are showing disrespect to such distinguishing personalities The memorials should be erected only at unobjectionable places and in any case not on the middle of roads. The names of celebrated artists like Thiru Sivaji Ganesan should not be dragged into the midst of litigation by the State by erecting his statue on the middle of road, to the dislike of motorists and pedestrians.

30. The Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.403, Revenue Department dated 26 June 2006 shows that the Commissioner of Police, while recommending the proposal, made it clear that the pedestal should not be elevated affecting the view of vehicles passing towards Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai. The Government also permitted erection of statue without affecting the traffic flow and the same is evident from paragraph No.4 of the Government Order.

31. The materials available on record would clearly show that the statue of Dr. Shivaji Ganesan, erected on the middle of the road at Kamarajar Salai Junction would affect the traffic flow and the view of vehicles passing through Dr. Radhakrishanan Salai.

32. While exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in furtherance of justice, the Court is concerned only about the cause. In fact, while setting aside the order of allotment of valuable land to Sri. Sourav Ganguly, Cricketer of International Repute by the State of West Bengal (Humanity v. State of W.B., (2011) 6 SCC 125), the Supreme Court made the position very clear in the following words:

"54. Before I conclude, I make it clear that I am aware that the allottee is a cricketer of great repute and has led this country to victory in many tournaments, both in India and abroad. I have watched him on the television on many occasions and was delighted to see his glorious cover drives and effortlessly lofted shots over the fence. But as a Judge, I have different duties to discharge. Here I must be objective and eschew my likes and dislikes and render justice to a cause which has come before the Court.

33. The traffic police have already given a report. It is now for the State to take a decision in the matter.

34. We therefore issue a writ of mandamus directing the State of Tamil Nadu, first respondent in the writ petition to take a decision regarding removal of the statue in the light of our observation, as expeditiously as possible.

35. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. Consequently, the connected MP is closed. No costs.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Search our Blog here

Google
 

Compiled by

Disclaimer


This Blog Spot is meant for publishing landmark judgments pronounced by the Court of law as we collected from the renowned Dailies, Magazines, etc., so as to create an awareness to the general public and also to keep it as a ready reckoner by them. As such the readers may extend their gratitude towards the Original Author as we quoted at the bottom of each Post under the title "Courtesy/Sources". Furthermore, the Blog Authors are no way responsible for the correctness of the materials published herein and the readers may verify the concerned valuable sources.



Followers

Dinamalar | Court News Feed

Dinakaran | Crime News Feed

Labels

Madras High Court (226) supreme court (157) Supreme Court (95) Madurai Bench (60) Advocate (44) High Court (44) tamil nadu (42) Indian Kanoon (41) Delhi High Court (37) Education (31) Divorce (30) Pondicherry (30) Husband (28) Wife (28) consumer forum (23) Lawyers (22) Cr.P.C. (20) Maintenance (20) police (20) Consumer (19) 2013 (16) Judges (16) article (16) the hindu (16) Matrimonial case (15) Hindu Marriage Act (14) Bank (13) Cruelty (13) IPC (13) karnataka high court (13) AIADMK (12) Compensation (12) Criminal cases (12) Jayalalithaa (12) dmk (12) Bar Council of India (11) CJI (11) School (11) Woman (11) election (11) Accident cases (10) Child (10) Kerala High Court (10) Marriage (10) dinamani (10) election commission (10) insurance (10) medical (10) Labour cases (9) MV ACT CASES (9) Madurai (9) Mobile Phone (9) doctors (9) evidence (9) pil (9) tamil nadu bar council (9) tax (9) taxation (9) Cell Phone (8) Examination (8) Frontline (8) Loans (8) Magistrate (8) Rent Control Act (8) State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (8) Allahabad high court (7) Bar Council (7) Constitution (7) Domestic Violence Act (7) Gujarat High Court (7) Negligence (7) Reservation Quota (7) Tenant Landlord (7) bombay high court (7) court (7) new delhi (7) 2012 (6) Andhra Pradesh High Court (6) Civil Judge (6) Complaint (6) Consumer National Commission (6) Dowry (6) Employee (6) Justice G. Rajasuria (6) Muslims (6) Notification (6) Railway (6) USA (6) arbitration (6) compassionate (6) madras (6) rape (6) rulings (6) sex (6) Airlines (5) Andhra Pradesh (5) College (5) Delay (5) Employer (5) FIR (5) Judgment (5) Karunanidhi (5) Labour Court (5) Madras Family Court (5) Mumbai High Court (5) Negotiable Instruments Act (5) President (5) Rajiv Gandhi (5) Recruitment (5) Sethusamudram ship canal (5) Student (5) TRAI (5) advertisement (5) appointment (5) deficiency of service (5) editorial (5) fined (5) 2014 (4) BSNL (4) Bigamy (4) CBI (4) Chief Minister of Pondicherry (4) Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu (4) Civil Matters (4) Commissioner of Police (4) Corruption (4) Daughter (4) Death penalty (4) Father (4) Fees (4) Foreigners Act (4) Gazette (4) Hindu (4) Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act (4) Hospitals (4) Judiciary (4) Justice G.Rajasuria (4) Life Imprisonment (4) Matrimonial House (4) Ministry of Law (4) Minor Child (4) Parents (4) Private Schools (4) RTI Act (4) Ram Sethu project (4) Sexual exploitation (4) Suspension (4) Teachers (4) Tenant (4) Transfer (4) contempt (4) delhi (4) hindustan times (4) karnataka (4) pmk (4) registration department (4) times of india (4) us (4) Actor (3) Adoption (3) Aircraft (3) Assassination (3) Ban (3) Bank Cases (3) CJ (3) Calcutta High Court (3) Cheque (3) Cheque Dishonour Cases (3) Computer (3) Copyright (3) Court Fees (3) Dinakaran (3) Disqualification (3) Electricity (3) Encroachers (3) Eviction (3) Full Bench Decision (3) HC Advocate Karunanidhi.R (3) Human Rights (3) Human Rights Commission (3) IT Act (3) Income Tax (3) Justice Ashok Kumar (3) Landlord (3) Law Firms (3) Limitation Act (3) Medicos (3) Motor Vehicle (3) Murder case (3) Muslim (3) NDNC (3) Panchayats Act (3) Patent (3) Prisoner (3) Proterty Act (3) Public Property (3) Punishment (3) RTE Act (3) Ragging (3) Salaries (3) Selection (3) Smoking (3) Strikes (3) Subramanian Swamy (3) Telephone (3) Theft (3) Villupuram (3) Websites (3) Wikipedia (3) Witness (3) Woman Lawyers (3) Workman (3) Youtube (3) girl (3) helmet (3) parliament (3) software (3) stamp act (3) 2007 (2) 5-Judges Bench (2) 99th Constitutional Amendment (2) Aadhaar Card (2) Abortion (2) Absence (2) Acquittal (2) Agitating (2) Agriculture (2) Airport (2) Airtel (2) Amendments (2) Apple (2) Arrest (2) Assault (2) BCCI (2) BCI (2) Britain (2) CBSE (2) CIC (2) CNN IBN (2) CPC (2) CTC (2) Chenai Corporation (2) Child Marriage Act (2) Child Witness (2) Cigarette (2) Citizenship (2) Code of Civil procedure (2) Coimbatore (2) Collector (2) Collegium systems (2) Companies Act (2) Complainant (2) Congress (2) Constitution Bench (2) Cr.P.C (2) Credit Card (2) DNA Test (2) Damages (2) Date of Birth (2) Dayanidhi Maran (2) District Judges (2) Driving Licence (2) Drugs (2) EVMs (2) Enrolment (2) Evening Court (2) Exam Marks (2) Eye-witness (2) Family (2) Family Court (2) Foreign Law Firms (2) Freedom Fighters (2) Fundamental Rights (2) Google (2) Governors (2) Grave crimes (2) Habeas Corpus (2) Haldiram (2) Health Ministry (2) High Courts (2) Himachal Pradesh High Court (2) ICICI (2) ID Act (2) Impeachment (2) Inspector General of Registration (2) Inter-caste (2) Interest (2) Interim Injunction (2) Interim Orders (2) International Arbitration (2) International Court of Justice (2) Internet (2) Job (2) Justice (2) Justice A.K.Ganguly (2) Justice Dinakaran (2) LPG (2) LTTE (2) Law Commission (2) Law Department (2) Lok Adalat (2) MPs (2) Madhya Pradesh High Court (2) Maharashtra (2) Mark Sheets (2) Medi-claim (2) Men (2) Microsoft (2) Municipal Post (2) Municipal Waste (2) Municipality (2) NJAC (2) Nagapattinam (2) Nalini (2) National Highways (2) Nuke Deal (2) Obscenity (2) PTI (2) Patient (2) Patna High Court (2) Penalty (2) Pension (2) Police Reforms Committee (2) Poll freebies (2) Power of Attorney (2) Pregnant (2) Prevention of Corruption Act (2) Prime Minister (2) Property (2) Public Meetings (2) Punjab High Court (2) Punjab and Haryana High Court (2) RBI (2) Registrar (2) Registration Act (2) Release (2) Reserve Bank of India (2) Retired benefits (2) Review (2) Rigorous imprisonment (2) Road (2) SBI (2) SC/ST (2) SHRC (2) Sale (2) Samacheer Kalvi (2) Sanjay Dutt (2) Self-defence (2) Sikkim (2) Sonia Gandhi (2) State Bar Concil (2) State Govts. (2) TADA (2) TNEB (2) Tamil New Year Act (2) Temples (2) Tobacco firms (2) Trafficking (2) University (2) Video (2) Vigilance (2) Vodafone (2) Wages (2) Water (2) West Bengal (2) Woman Judges (2) backlog of cases (2) bail (2) customs duty (2) laptops (2) legislature (2) practitioners (2) service (2) service tax (2) sessions judge (2) tiruchi (2) 100 RUPEE (1) 11 weeks imprisonment (1) 18 Years (1) 2001 (1) 2006 (1) 2009 (1) 2011 (1) 2015 (1) 2016 (1) 5 Judges Bench (1) 6th Pay Scale (1) AIIMS (1) Aadal Paadal (1) Aadhar Card (1) Abuse (1) Accountable (1) Act (1) Adjournments (1) Adverse possession (1) Advocate Cyril Mathias Vincent (1) Advocate M.Kumaran (1) Advocate M.S.Maruthupandiyan (1) Advocate P.S.Amalraj (1) Advocates' Welfare Fund Act (1) Agreement (1) Air India (1) Alien Species (1) Allahabad (1) Allergy (1) Allopathy (1) Amusement parks (1) Anbumani Ramadoss (1) Answer Sheets (1) Apartments (1) Appearance (1) Arguments (1) Arrears (1) Arunachal Pradesh (1) Ashok Kumar (1) Assembly Speaker (1) Assets case (1) Association (1) Attendance (1) Attention Please (1) Auditors (1) Australia (1) Autopsy (1) Ayodhya (1) BJP (1) Babri Masjid (1) Baby (1) Baggage missing (1) Bank Account (1) Banners (1) Bar Association (1) Bar Council of Tamil Nadu (1) Batco Roadways' case (1) Bhavani Singh (1) Bhopal gas tragedy (1) Bhullar's mercy plea (1) Big TV (1) Bihar (1) Bihar Prohibition Act (1) Bill (1) Biscuits (1) Black Sea (1) Bofors case (1) Bonus (1) Boycott (1) Brain-mapping (1) Brothers (1) Burqa (1) Buses (1) Business Line (1) Bye-laws (1) CAT (1) CEC (1) CITY CIVIL COURT (1) CTV (1) Calcutta (1) Cambodian (1) Camera (1) Canada (1) Cargo Ship (1) Caste (1) Cauvery (1) Cauvery Tribunal Award (1) Censor Board (1) Central Crime Branch (1) Certificates (1) Chennai (South) Forum (1) Chhattisgarh State Bar Council (1) Chief Judicial Magistrate (1) Chief Justices of India (1) Christian (1) Civic Election (1) Civic Elections (1) Common facilities Block (1) Commonwealth Games Panel (1) Communal harmony (1) Compounding Offences (1) Condoms (1) Contract labour (1) Conversion Formula (1) Cooperative Societies (1) Copying (1) Corporation (1) Cosmetic (1) Costumes (1) Court Buildings (1) Creche (1) Cricket (1) Criminalisation (1) Culcutta High Court (1) Current Tamil Nadu Cases (1) Custodial death (1) DGP (1) DK (1) DMDK (1) DRT (1) Dalits (1) Dasavatharam (1) Daughter-in-law (1) Death (1) Debarring (1) Deccan (1) Defamation (1) Defaulters (1) Degree (1) Departmental Enquiry (1) Derogatory remarks (1) Desertion (1) Designation (1) Destruction (1) Detergent Soap (1) Dharmapuri (1) Directory (1) Disabled person (1) Disconnection (1) Dispensary (1) Don Bosco Matriculation School (1) Don Bosco School (1) Download Links (1) Dozing (1) Dr.Ramadoss (1) Dress Code (1) Driver (1) Drunk driving (1) Dying Declaration (1) EPIC (1) ESI Act (1) EU (1) Education Department (1) Education Loan (1) Elevation (1) Emergency (1) Employment (1) Engineering College (1) Enquiry (1) Entertainment tax (1) Environment (1) European Court (1) Events to Remember (1) Exam Cheaters (1) Exit Polls (1) Experts Committee (1) Expulsion (1) Facebook (1) Fair Criticism (1) False (1) Fat (1) Father's identity (1) Father-in-law (1) Film (1) Fire (1) Flats (1) Flexi Boards (1) Food (1) Framing of Charges (1) France (1) French Civil Code (1) French Regime (1) Fringe Benefit Tax (1) Frivolous Petition (1) GOs (1) Garments (1) Gauhati HC (1) Gender Bias (1) Gingee Court (1) Gingee-TV Malai NH (1) Girlfriend (1) Goa (1) Gondas (1) Goods (1) Goons (1) Government Offices (1) Government Officials (1) Govt. Servants' Conduct Rules (1) Govt. sites (1) Grandchildren (1) Gratuity (1) Green Card (1) Guardian (1) Gubernatorial (1) Gudalur Janmam Estates (1) Guidelines (1) Guilty (1) HC Calendar (1) HIV Patient (1) HRCE Act (1) Hamam Soap (1) Handcuff (1) Haryana (1) Hawkers (1) Heroin (1) Hewlett Packard (1) High Court Bench for Pondicherry (1) Highways (1) Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment (1) Hindu Succession Act (1) Hindus (1) Hindustan Lever Limited (1) Hindustan Unilever Limited (1) Hoardings (1) Holiday Court (1) Holidays (1) Hostel (1) Hutchison Essar (1) Hyderabad (1) ICJ (1) ICSE (1) IMDT Act (1) IPL (1) IT Tax Tribunal (1) Identity Cards (1) Illegitimate (1) Images (1) Immoral (1) Impotent (1) Imprisonment (1) Incest (1) Infiltrators (1) Interest rates (1) Interview (1) Invalid (1) Investigation (1) Invitation (1) Jammu and Kashmir (1) Jats Reservation (1) Jharkhand (1) Journal Section (1) Judicial Discretion (1) Judicial Officers (1) Judicial Staffs (1) Junction (1) Justice A.P.Shah (1) Justice Bhagwati (1) Justice F.M.Ibrahim Kalifulla (1) Justice G Rajasuriya (1) Justice P.Sathasivam (1) Justice Rajasuriya (1) Juvenile Justice Board (1) K.R.Narayanan (1) K.Veeramani (1) KFC (1) Kabil Sibal (1) Kachatheevu (1) Karaikal (1) Katchativu case (1) Kathi (1) Kerala (1) Kerla (1) Khushboo (1) Kidney (1) Kingfisher (1) Kodak (1) LIC (1) Lakes (1) Land Owners (1) Larger Bench (1) Laundry (1) Law College (1) Lawyer Notice (1) Leave (1) Legal Practitioners Act 2010 (1) Leprosy Patient (1) License Fees (1) Lift (1) Links (1) Live-in-relationship (1) Local Bodies (1) Lok Sabha (1) MCOCA (1) MLAs (1) MNC (1) Malaria (1) Malaysian Airlines (1) Malpractice (1) Mangalore Express (1) Manupatra (1) Marriage Registration Certificates (1) Married (1) Mediation (1) Medical College issue (1) Meghalaya (1) Mercy Petition (1) Mizoram (1) Mobile Court (1) Money Lending licence (1) Mosquito Bite (1) Mother (1) Movies (1) Mutual Consent (1) NDPS Act (1) NDTV (1) NH 31A (1) NHRCs (1) NI Act (1) NOTA (1) NPT (1) NRI (1) NSA Act (1) Nagaland (1) Nallathambi (1) Narco Analysis (1) National Taxation Tribunal (1) Natural Justice (1) Navarasu murder case (1) Negative Voting (1) Nepal (1) News Today (1) Nivedita Sharma (1) No-confidence motion (1) Non-Karnataka Vehicles (1) Non-signatory (1) None of the Above (1) Norms (1) North Carolina (1) Notary Public (1) Notifications (1) Nursing College (1) Office Bearers (1) Official Language (1) Oil Companies (1) Online (1) Oral (1) Ordinance (1) Origin (1) Orissa High Court (1) PBA (1) PD Act (1) PEC (1) PF (1) PHCs (1) PIB (1) PNDT Act (1) PTO (1) Panorama view (1) Parle Marie (1) Partnership (1) Paternity (1) Patta (1) Pending case (1) Pondicherry Code (1) Pondicherry Courts (1) Pondicherry Engineering College (1) Pondicherry University (1) Port (1) Possession (1) Post Office (1) Posters (1) Postmortem (1) Power (1) Prabha Sridevan (1) Preamble (1) Premarital sex (1) Press Trust of India (1) Prestige (1) Presumption of Death (1) Prisoners (1) Private (1) Private Defence (1) Prize Draw Contest (1) Profession (1) Profile (1) Promotion (1) Prosecution (1) Protest (1) Provident Fund (1) Public Prosecutor (1) Puducherry Code (1) Pulipaarvai (1) Quash (1) Quattrocchi (1) Quick Links (1) RCOP (1) RDBFI Act (1) RIM (1) RPF (1) Railway Budget (1) Railway Tribunal (1) Railways Act (1) Rajasthan High Court (1) Rajasuria (1) Rajeswari case (1) Rajya Sabha (1) Re-name (1) Recovery (1) Refund (1) Regional SC Bench (1) Registration (1) Regulations (1) Reinstatement (1) Relatives (1) Reliance (1) Religion (1) Religious Functions (1) Remanding (1) Removal (1) Rename (1) Repeal of Local Laws (1) Resident (1) Respondent (1) Retired Judges (1) Retired Staffs (1) Revaluation (1) Rexona Soap (1) Right to Information Act (1) Right to Sleep (1) Rin (1) Romania (1) Rural (1) SMS (1) SPP (1) Sachar Commission (1) Safai Karamchari Andolan case (1) Sanction (1) Saree (1) Satta Padhukappu (1) Scam (1) Secretary (1) Section 102 CPC (1) Section 125(3) (1) Section 66A (1) Sections 499 and 500 (1) Security (1) Senior Advocate (1) Septic Tank (1) Serials (1) Service matters (1) Settlement (1) Sewerage works (1) Shankaracharya case (1) Sheristadar (1) Ship (1) Shivaji Ganesan Statue (1) Sivaji Ganesan Statue (1) Sleeping (1) Soap (1) Son (1) Special Marriages Act (1) Sri Lanka (1) Sri Lanka Supreme Court (1) Sri Meenakshi Sundareswarar Temple (1) Suicide (1) Sukanya (1) Surgery (1) Syllabus (1) TNPSC (1) TV (1) Tamil Links (1) Telecom (1) Telegraph Act (1) Thanthai Periyar (1) Third Party (1) Thirukural (1) Thirunelveli (1) Ticket Bookings (1) Ticket less Journey (1) Tide (1) Time-barred matters (1) Title suit (1) Toronto (1) Trademarks (1) Traffic (1) Transfer Certificate (1) Transport Authority (1) Travels Agent (1) Trees (1) Tripurar (1) Turban law (1) USE Act (1) Ukraine (1) Unauthorised layouts (1) Unauthorised plots (1) Unconstitutional (1) Union Carbide Corporation (1) Union Minister (1) Universities (1) Unruly Advocates (1) Unwed mother (1) Uttarakhand (1) Uttaranchal (1) VAO (1) VRS (1) Vacuum Cleaner (1) Vakalat (1) Vaseline (1) Verbal (1) Video Poker (1) Video-conferencing (1) Vijayakant (1) Visa (1) Voters (1) Voting (1) Wakf (1) Watchman (1) Who's Who (1) Widow (1) Will (1) Word (1) Workmen Compensation Act (1) Wrong Provision (1) Yahoo (1) architects (1) azhagiri (1) british airways (1) churidar (1) deccan herald (1) delh (1) double taxation (1) e-Library (1) eBay (1) eCourt (1) ebc (1) farmers loan waiver (1) germany citizen (1) guideline value (1) guruvayur devaswom (1) hMatrimonial case (1) india (1) law and order (1) nawaz sharif (1) pakistan (1) pakistan supreme court (1) practical lawyer (1) pratiba (1) promise (1) rules (1) sand mining (1) southern districts (1) uk (1) warrants for cash scam (1) தி இந்து (1) தூக்கம் (1)