K. Muthukumar, a Tamil youth in his prime age abortively terminated his life for a cause which was dearer to him on 21. 2009 at Chennai. The whole of Tamil Nadu was shocked and became speechless. The last testament left by him before his death was widely publicized in all newspapers. There were meetings to condole his death and was adored for the spirit of sacrifice.

.2. Exactly a year later, the petitioner who is the leader of a political party decided to erect a statue in honour of Muthukumar at Sanoorapatti Village, Budalur Panchayat Union, Thanjavur Taluk. They had decided to put up a bust-size statue of Muthukumar in the land exclusively belonged to a private person in S.No.159B/7A. They had also decided to have a meeting to commemorate the unveiling of the statue on 15. 2010 in that village.

3. With this object in mind, the petitioner approached the District Collector, Thanjavur with an application, dated 5. 2010 to grant necessary permission. They submitted that the land is in unobjectionable and private patta land. A copy of the affidavit notarized by Notary Public given by the land owner-cum-pattadar was enclosed. It was stated that it is not an hindrance to anyone. It was claimed by the petitioner that Muthukumar is a Martyr for a noble cause of demanding a ceasefire to stop killing of Eelam Tamils by the Srilankan Army due to continuous bombing and that he died for a noble cause.

4. The second respondent District Collector by his communication, dated 5. 2010 informed the petitioner that permission from the State Government should be obtained for the installation of the statue. Hence without that permission convening of a meeting on 15. 2010 was not proper. He had also asked the petitioner to furnish several documents, including chitta, adangal for the place, FMB sketch, topo map, structure of the statue, that the statue will be made of bronze at their own expenses, an undertaking that in case of road expansion, the statue will be removed on their own volition, the resolution of the panchayat and the estimated cost of the statue. Pursuant to the order passed by the District Collector, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thanjavur Division by a further communication informed the petitioner that without getting approval from the State Government, fixing the date for unveiling the statue was not proper. The Tahsildar, Thanjavur and the Inspector of Police, Bhoodalur were asked to supervise that no statue will be erected without permission.

5. Thepetitioner thereafter asked the Information Officer attached to the District Collectorate that necessary Government Orders and regulations in erecting the statues in the private patta lands should be furnished to him. The District Collector made an endorsement to inform the petitioner the appropriate steps taken on the said requisition. The District Collector by his communication, dated 15. 2010 informed the petitioner that there are no details available in their office regarding the queries made by him.

6. Faced with an inaction of the District administration, the petitioner has approached this court challenging the orders, dated 5. 2010 contending that the orders passed were arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In the absence of any valid law followed by the Government Order regulating the erection of statues in the private land, there could not be any refusal for the petitioner in erecting the statue of Martyr Muthukumar. It was further contended that for the installation of the statue in the private land, no prior permission of the Government is required. The respondents declining permission in this regard is completely unwarranted.

7. The writ petition was admitted on 6. 2010. Pending the writ petition, in the application for an interim relief, this court merely ordered notice. The respondents on being served took several adjournments. Finally, they produced a written instruction dated 17. 2010 together with certain documents