Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 4209
High Court of Judicature at Madras
K. CHANDRU
Nakkheeran Gopal
Versus
Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu & Others
W.P.No.15444 of 2012, M.P.No.1 of 2012 and Contempt Petition No.1040 of 2012
Decided On : 12-10-2012
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:P.T. Perumal for M/s. Stalin Abhimanyu, Advocate.
For the Respondents:A. Navaneethakrishnan, Advocate General Assisted by E. Sampath Kumar, Spl.G.P. (Education).
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for fair norms in the discharge of duties by public authorities and the requirement to adhere to court orders.
Headnote:
Permission - Meeting - [Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, District Library Officers, Local Library Authority] - [Guidelines for letting out the hall, cancellation of permission, police clearance] - The court granted permission to the petitioner to organize the function and directed the authorities to permit the meeting without any disturbance. The court also framed guidelines for future meetings, stating that organizers do not require police clearance, and once the meeting is permitted, the permission should not be cancelled except for reasons beyond control.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought permission to conduct a meeting to celebrate the 78th birth anniversary of a Senior Journalist. Despite initial permission, the authorities cancelled the permission on administrative grounds, leading to the function being conducted in the car parking area using car headlights.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the cancellation of permission was unwarranted and that the authorities deliberately disobeyed the court's order. The court admonished the respondents for violating the order and framed guidelines for future meetings.
Issues: Cancellation of permission, deliberate disobedience of court order, violation of fair norms in discharging duties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the deliberate disobedience of the order and the need to ensure fair norms in the discharge of duties by the authorities.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with directions for future meetings, and the contempt petition was closed with an admonishment to the respondents.
The writ petition was filed by the petitioner, seeking for a direction to the second respondent viz., Superintendent, District Library Office, Chennai to grant permission to conduct the meeting to be held on 15.06.2012 at 6.00 p.m in Devaneya Pavanar Arangam, (LLA Building), Chennai - 600 002.
2. The petitioner, Founder of the Chinnakuthoosi Memorial Trust organised a function to celebrate the 78th birth anniversary of Chinnakuthoosi, a Senior Journalist. The function was organised to honour one Pulavar Vetriazhagan for life time achievement and M/s.Pazha Adhiyaman, K.Elakkuvan and R.Uma, the winners of best Articles.
3. The petitioner had requested the Inspector of Police, Thousand Lights Police Station for the grant of permission to conduct the function and to provide Police protection. The petitioner also enclosed a copy of the invitation along with the requisition letter. Pursuant to the No Objection, an amount of Rs.8,000/-towards rental and electricity charges was paid by the Trust in the name of one V.Jambulingam, reserving the hall for the function to be held on 15.06.2012 between 6.00 p.m. and 9.00 pm. But on the date of function, viz., 15.06.2012, the second respondent called one Gopanna, one of the member of the Trust at 12.00 noon and informed him that the permission granted to the function was withdrawn. Despite the member of the Trust pleading to the authority seeking for a written order, the same was not furnished. Prior notice was also not given. Hence, the matter was moved urgently before this Court after seeking permission for special motion.
4. This Court after hearing Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandian, learned Additional Advocate General passed an interim direction and posted the matter for further orders on 19.06.2012. In paragraphs 4 and 5, this Court directed as follows:-
"4. When the matter was about to be taken up, it was brought to the notice by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the District Library Officer on behalf of the local Library authority by an order dated 14.06.2012 cancelled the permission granted on administrative grounds. The specious reason mentioned was that since text books will have to be distributed for the Group IV examination conducted by Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, meeting cannot be permitted. This reason is only stated to be rejected. The meeting is to be held on 15.06.2012 at 6.00 p.m for which already the second respondent had collected the amount and gave permission and the organisers have proceeded to print the invitation. Cancelling the permission around 3.00 p.m is totally unwarranted.
5. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, while ordering notice in the main writ petition, this Court grants direction to the petitioner to organise the function. The District Library Officer namely the Secretary to LLA Building, Devaneya Pavanar Arangam is hereby directed to permit the petitioner to conduct the meeting without any disturbance. Any deviation from this order will be viewed strictly."
5. The order copy was also furnished by 5.00 pm to the learned counsel for the petitioner. This Court also directed the learned Special Government Pleader, who assisted the Additional Advocate General to inform the authorities.
6. Notwithstanding the same, an office letter said to have been passed on 14.06.2012 by the second respondent was produced before this Court, wherein, it was stated that since Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission was conducting an examination for Group IV posts, they were intending to distribute books for use in Libraries between 3.00 to 7.00 pm on 15.06.2012, permission granted to the petitioner Trust was cancelled on administrative grounds. The Trustees were requested to come and collect the rental and electricity charges in person.
7. Mr.V.Jambulingam, the member of the Trust in whose name the letter dated 14.06.2012 was made has filed an affidavit stating that on 15.06.
