Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2009 Supreme(SC) 1349

2009(6) Supreme 141
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Madras High Court)
A. Abdul Farook — Appellant
versus
Municipal Council, Perambalur & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4972 of 2009
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.9576 of 2005)
with
Civil Appeal No. 4973 of 2009
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.9577 of 2005)
Decided on : 31-07-2009

Advocates Appeared:
T.L.V. Lyer, C.S. Viadhyanathan, K.V. Viswhwanathan, V. Kanankraj, V. Krishna Mruthy, Sr. Advs., Ms. Indira G., Jagdishvaran, John Mathew, V. Mohana, Raghunath, Abhishek Kaushik, V.G. Pragasam, V. Vasudevan, G. Ramakrishna Prasad, S. Thananjayan, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
In view of the doctrine of public trust the State should not grant permission to erect arches on the roads.
Strict rules of pleadings may not be insisted upon in certain PIL.

Headnote:(a) Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 – Section 26(1) – The provision having been couched in negative language must be construed to be imperative in character – It is also mandatory in view of section 49. (Para 11)
        (b) Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 – Section 26 – After coming into force of the Act, State is denuded of its power in the matter of grant of any permission. (Para 13)
        (c) Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 – Section 26 – State should not have granted permission to erect arches on the roads in view of the doctrine of public trust. (Para 16)
        (1997) 1 SCC 388; (1999) 6 SCC 464; 2006 (2) SCALE 494 – Relied upon.
        (d) Constitution of India – Article 226 – PIL – Strict rules of pleadings may not be insisted upon in PIL of this nature – Even while discharging the petitioners Court could deal with PIL suo motu. (Para 17)
        (2009) 1 SCC 441; (2008) 12 SCC 541; (2008) 9 SCC 54 – Relied upon.
       Facts of the case:
        1. In terms of Govt. notification granting permission for installation of statutes and erection of arches, requisitions seeking for permission to put up of arches and the like, were submitted to the District Collector.
        2. The Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 was enacted with a view to provide for declaration of certain highways to be the State Highways. It came into force with effect from 1.12.2002.
        3. In exercise of its powers conferred under Section 3 of the Act, a Notification was issued declaring some of the roads as State Highways, Major District Roads and other District Roads. The Thuraiyur-Perambalur Road and Thuraimangalam-Bungalow Road were classified as Major District Roads.
        4. Perambalur Municipality was requisitioned to issue a ‘No Objection Certificate’ for the purpose of erecting arches on the occasion of 57th Birthday Celebrations of the Chief Minister at two places outside the boundary line of the abovementioned roads which were issued on the condition that there would be no hindrance to the traffic.
        5. District Collector forwarded a proposal to the Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, State Highways recommending for the required permission.
        6. The appellant – a Ward Councillor filed a writ petition for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the abovesaid No Objection Certificate. A learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the said writ petition.
        7. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, State Highways Department granted permission to construct the arches.
        8. A writ petition was filed praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from putting up of permanent arches.
        9. The Division Bench of the High Court by reason of the impugned judgment dismissed both the Writ Appeal No.410 of 2005 as well as the Writ Petition No.6820 of 2005.
       Finding of the Court:
        Impugned judgment cannot be sustained.
       Result : Appeal allowed with cost.

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.—

1. Leave granted.

2. Interpretation and/or application of Section 26 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as ‘the said Act’) is in question in this appeal. It arises out of a judgment and order dated 21.3.2005 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Petition No.6820 of 2005 and Writ Appeal No.410 of 2005.

3. The basic fact involved in this matter is not in dispute.

On or about 13.2.1998 The Government of Tamil Nadu issued a Notification bearing GOMs No.32 granting permission for installation of statutes and erection of arches. In terms thereof, requisitions, seeking for permission to put up of arches and the like, were submitted to the District Collector, who, on receipt thereof was required to get reports from the Divisional Engineer of the State Highways, District Superintendent of Police etc. On receipt of such reports and on being satisfied therewith, the District Collector could make recommendations so as to enable the Government to grant or refuse to grant the requisite permission.

The Legislature of the State enacted the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 (Tamil Nadu Act 34 of 2002 ) (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as ‘the Act’) with a view to provide for declaration of certain highways to be the State Highways. It came into force with effect from 1.12.2002.

In exercise of its powers conferred upon the State Government under Section 3 of the Act, it, on or about 16.12.2003, issued a Notification being GOMs No.250 declaring some of the roads as State Highways, Major District Roads and other District Roads. The roads in question in this appeal are Thuraiyur-Perambalur Road and Thuraimangalam-Bungalow Road. They have been classified as Major District Roads. Both the roads were declared to be highways belonging to the Government.

On or about 22.10.2004, one Mr. Ravichandran, President of Tamil Nadu Handloom and Textiles Development Corporation (respondent herein) requisitioned the Perambalur Municipality to issue a ‘No Objection Certificate’ for the purpose of erecting arches on the occasion of 57th Birthday Celebrations of the Chief Minister at two places outside the boundary line of the abovementioned roads. On or about 23.10.2004, the Executive Officer, Perambalur Municipality issued a No Objection Certificate to construct the arches as per the abovesaid requisition on the condition that there would be no hindrance to the traffic.

On or about 24.11.2004, the Municipal Council vide a resolution dated 24.11.2004 granted its approval for grant of No Objection Certificate. Thereafter the requisition and the approval thereof were placed before the District Collector, who, in terms of the guidelines issued in GOMs No.32 called for reports from the Divisional Engineer of Highways, Ariyalur and the District Superintendent of Police. The Divisional Engineer, Highways on 20.12.2004 sent a report to the District Collector stating that arches can be permitted to be put up at the said two places and that putting up of the arches would not cause any hindrance to the traffic being outside the boundary line of the roads. It was also stated in the report that an undertaking was obtained from Mr. Ravinchandran that in case of expansion of roads, he would remove the arches. On or about 14.01.2005, the District Superintendent of Police also sent his report recommending grant of permission for construction of arches.

On receipt of both the reports, the District Collector forwarded a proposal to the Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, State Highways recommending for the required permission.

On or about 24.1.2005, the appellant - Ward Councillor of Perambalur Municipality filed a writ petition being WP No.2503 of 2005 before the High Court of Madras praying, inter alia, for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the abovesaid No Objection Certificate. A learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the said w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2009 Supreme(SC) 1349

IMPORTANT POINT In view of the doctrine of public trust the State should not grant permission to erect arches on the roads. Strict rules of pleadings may not be insisted upon in certain PIL.

Cases Referred (5)

IMPORTANT POINT
In view of the doctrine of public trust the State should not grant permission to erect arches on the roads.
Strict rules of pleadings may not be insisted upon in certain PIL.