Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1971 Supreme(Mad) 47

Madras High Court
PALANISWAMY
R.Varadarajan - Appellant
Versus
Salem Municipal Council by its Commissioner, Salem - Respondent
Decided On : 02/01/1971

Advocates:
R. Nodanasabapathy, for Petitioner; S. Mohan, K. Alagiriswami, S. K. Rajavelu and R. Shanmugham, for Respondents.

A Municipal Council cannot grant permission to construct a statue on a public street, and a statue is a 'building' within the meaning of the District Municipalities Act, 1920, and must be constructed in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder.

Headnote:
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL - RESOLUTION - VALIDITY - PUBLIC STREET - OBSTRUCTION - BUILDING - STATUE - LOCUS STANDI - TAXPAYER - SITTING MEMBER OF COUNCIL - WRIT OF CERTIORARI.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a member of the Salem Municipal Council, challenged the validity of a resolution passed by the Council allotting a place at the junction of the Victory Market Road and Govindaswamy Pillai Road opposite to Bose Maidan in Salem Town for the purpose of erecting a statue of the late Chief Minister of this State, Thiru C.N. Annadurai. He prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the said resolution on the ground that it is beyond the powers of the Municipal Council.
Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the impugned resolution was violative of the provisions of the District Municipalities Act, 1920, and was hence illegal. The Court also held that the petitioner had locus standi to maintain the petition, both as a sitting member of the Council and as a taxpayer.
Issues: 1. Whether the impugned resolution was valid? 2. Whether the petitioner had locus standi to maintain the petition?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the impugned resolution was violative of the provisions of the District Municipalities Act, 1920, and was hence illegal. The Court observed that the Municipal Council had no power to grant permission to construct the statue on a public street, and that the statue was a 'building' within the meaning of the Act and had not been constructed in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder. 2. The Court held that the petitioner had locus standi to maintain the petition, both as a sitting member of the Council and as a taxpayer. The Court observed that the petitioner, as a sitting member of the Council, had a right to see that the Municipal Council acted according to the provisions of the Act and that the impugned resolution had a tendency or was likely to affect his continuance as a member during the normal period of the term of the Municipal Council. The Court also held that the petitioner, as a taxpayer, was entitled to question the action of the Municipal Council in spending the municipal funds for the maintenance of the statue that had been erected in violation of the provisions of the Act.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned resolution.

ORDER :- The petitioner, Varadarajan, who is a member of the Salem Municipal Council challenges the validity of a resolution passed by the said Council on 21-08-1969 allotting a place at the junction of the Victory Market Road and Govindaswamy Pillai Road opposite to Bose Maidan in Salem Town for the purpose of erecting a statue of the late Chief Minister of this State, Thiru C.N. Annadurai. He prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the said resolution on the ground that it is beyond the powers of the Municipal Council. A Committee called 'Anna Statue Erection Committee' appears to have been formed with one Thiru Rarajam as its Chairman. The said Anna Statue Erection Committee is the second respondent in this writ petition, whereas the Salem Municipal Council is the first respondent. The Statue Committee made a request to the Municipal Council to accord permission to it to install a statue of the late Chief Minister. This subject came up for consideration before the Council on 21-08-1969. One member of the Council moved the resolution to accord sanction for the said installation. Another member proposed an amendment stating that the place suggested was narrow and congested and that, therefore, any other suitable place may be selected. This amendment was put to vote. Only 10 members voted for the amendment, whereas 21 members voted for the original resolution. Thus the resolution was carried by majority. The petitioner was not present at the time when the resolution was passed. In pursuance of this resolution, the statue committee erected a statue at the aforesaid place and the statue was proposed to be unveiled by Thiru V.V. Giri, President of the Indian Union, on 15-09-1969. The petitioner presented this petition on 11-09-1969 and the same was admitted on 12-09-1969. The petitioner prayed for the issue of a temporary injunction to restrain the unveiling of the statue, in C.M.P. No. 12216 of 1969. Alagiriswami, J., before whom that petition came up for hearing, dismissed it holding that the petitioner made the above request for injunction deliberately at the last moment just before the unveiling, that if the petitioner ultimately succeeded, it would not be difficult to shift the statue to another place and that, therefore, the circumstances did not warrant the grant of the interim injunction. With the result, the statue has been unveiled.

2. The contention of the petitioner is that under the District Municipalities Act, 1920, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) constructing anything in the nature of the permanent structure on a public street, is expressly forbidden that the Municipal Council has no power to grant permission to construct the statue on a public street, and that as such, the resolution according sanction is illegal. It is also his contention that the statue is a 'building' within the meaning of the Act and that it has not been constructed in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder. He claims the relief of writ of certiorari to quash the resolution in his capacity as a member of the tax paying general public and also as a sitting councillor.

3. The Commissioner of the Salem Municipality has filed a counter-affidavit alleging that the resolution is valid and legal, that there are no errors apparent on the face of the record, that the statue has been installed on an existing traffic island, that there is enough width of 35 feet on either side of the pedestal, that the construction does not cause any permanent obstruction, that after construction, the statue has been handed over to the Municipal Council and has become the Municipal property and that, as such, the building rules which do not apply to Government or quasi-Government buildings are not applicable to the statue. The second respondent has filed a counter-affidavit supporting the contentions raised by the first respondent and further alleging that the petitioner is not entitled to ask for the issue of a writ of c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

1971 Supreme(Mad) 47

Madras High CourtPALANISWAMYR.Varadarajan - AppellantVersusSalem Municipal Council by its Commissioner, Salem - RespondentDecided On : 02/01/1971

A Municipal Council cannot grant permission to construct a statue on a public street, and a statue is a 'building' within the meaning of the District Municipalities Act, 1920, and must be constructed in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder.

Judicial Analysis

Madras High Court
PALANISWAMY
R.Varadarajan - Appellant
Versus
Salem Municipal Council by its Commissioner, Salem - Respondent
Decided On : 02/01/1971