Back
1989 Supreme(Mad) 549
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BAKTHAVATSALAM
K. T. Alagappa Chettiar - Appellant
Versus
The Collector, Tiruvannamalai and Others - Respondents
Writ Petn. No.14307 of 1989
Decided On : 22 November 1989
The Police Department's occupation of the Madam was illegal and unconstitutional as there was no written contract or documentation indicating the petitioner's consent to rent out the building.
Headnote:
POLICE OCCUPATION OF RELIGIOUS PREMISES - ILLEGAL OCCUPATION - WRIT OF MANDAMUS - AWARD OF COSTS - POLICE DEPARTMENT ACTED IN AN ARBITRARY MANNER - NO WRITTEN CONTRACT BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT AND THE PETITIONER - POLICE USED THE KITCHEN FOR A PURPOSE WHICH IS NOT IN TUNE WITH THE RELIGIOUS SENTIMENTS OF NATTOKOTTAI NAGARATHAR COMMUNITY - AWARD OF COSTS TO THE PETITIONER AS DAMAGES FOR UNLAWFUL OCCUPATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, claiming to be the Managing Trustee of Nattukottai Nagarathar Oya Madam, Tiruvannamalai, filed a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to remove the police personnel illegally occupying the Madam and declare their occupation as illegal, unconstitutional, and without any sanction of law. The petitioner alleged that the police forcibly entered the Madam and directed him to remove all the articles belonging to the Madam, intending to use it as Police Headquarters for the bifurcated North Arcot District, renamed as Sambuvaroyar district.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Police Department had already vacated the premises on the second of November 1989, rendering the writ petition infructuous. However, the court observed that the Police Department had acted in an arbitrary manner by entering the premises without a written contract or any documentation indicating the petitioner's consent to rent out the building. The court also noted that the Police Department had used the kitchen for a purpose that was not in tune with the religious sentiments of the Nattukottai Nagarathar Community.
Issues: 1. Whether the Police Department's occupation of the Madam was illegal and unconstitutional? 2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to damages for the unlawful occupation?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Police Department's occupation of the Madam was illegal and unconstitutional as there was no written contract or documentation indicating the petitioner's consent to rent out the building. 2. The court awarded costs to the petitioner as damages for the unlawful occupation, considering the arbitrary actions of the Police Department and their use of the kitchen for a purpose that was not in tune with the religious sentiments of the Nattukottai Nagarathar Community.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous since the Police Department had already vacated the premises. However, the court awarded costs to the petitioner as damages for the unlawful occupation, considering the arbitrary actions of the Police Department and their use of the kitchen for a purpose that was not in tune with the religious sentiments of the Nattukottai Nagarathar Community.
The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to remove the police personnel illegally occupying the Nattukottai Nagarathar Oya Madam, Tiruvadal Street, Tiruvannamalai, Sambuvaroyar District and declare their occupation as illegal, unconstitutional and without any sanction of law.
2. The petitioner claiming to the Managing Trustee of Nattukottai Nagarathar Oya Madam, Tiruvannamalai has come up to this Court with the complaint that the first respondent came to the Madam and directed him to remove the articles belonging to the Madam to enable him to allot the premises to be used as Police Headquarters for the bifurcated North Arcot District, renamed as Sambuvaroyar district. The allegation made is that he refused to give the permission and the Special Officer was accompanied by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai. It is stated in the affidavit that the petitioner gave lawyer's notice on the same day setting forth his objections. It is stated that the presiding deity of Tiruvannamalai, namely, Sri. Arunachaleswarar, is the "Kula Deviam" of the Nagarathar community and their people numbering about two lakhs, spread over 92 villages and towns, often visit the temple and would avail the facilities provided for in the Madam for boarding and lodging. It is also stated that during "Karthigai Deepam", a popular festival, the Madam would be fully occupied and food will be provided to occupants free of cost. It is also stated that the upstairs portion is already let out to Electricity Department and the available are is the Hall and the kitchen attached thereto in which poojas are conducted during festival days. In view of this, the petitioner informed the first respondent expressing the impossibility of allowing the Madam to be used as Police Headquarters. To this notice, no reply was given by the first respondent. According to the petitioner, on 5-10-1989, a battalion of 400 policemen entered into the Madam forcibly and directed him to remove all the articles belonging to the Madam and the petitioner was informed that Oya Madam will henceforth be used as Police Headquarters. It is 'alleged that the petitioner protested to the illegal entry of the policemen in the Madam, but his opposition was dealt with by hauling the petitioner out of the Madam. It is stated that the Police Force, which is supposed to maintain law and order, cannot perpetrate illegality and disorder to public peace and tranquillity and the action of the policemen entering the Madam and orally informing the trustee that it would be used as Police Headquarters, would make any prudent individual doubt the democratic set up in our country. It is also stated that no civilised jurisprudence authorises forcible dispossession by responsible police officers and further make self serving declaration that it would henceforth be used as Police Headquarters. It is stated that the second respondent has allowed his men to transgress into the rights of the petitioner thereby violating the constitutional and statutory obligations cast upon the State to protect. After a telegraphic notice to the respondents on 14-10-1989, the petitioner has come to this Court claiming that his rights under Art.26 of the Constitution of India is being infringed and if the Police converts the Madam into a Police Headquarters, it will result in crippling the trustee of the obligation cast on him to render service. It is also stated that since the respondents have violated Arts.25 and 26 of the Constitution of India, they should be made liable for their illegal conduct by payment of damages. With this prayer, the petitioner has come up to this Court.
3. Notice of motion has been ordered on 31-10-1989. Learned Additional Government Pleader appears for the respondents and represents that the writ petition has become infructuous since the Police Department has already handed over Oya Madam to the petitioner on the Second of November, 1989 and
