The court emphasized the need for judicial restraint and the careful use of public interest litigation, and upheld the order stating that the painting of the leaves on the mini buses plying in Chennai is to be suitably covered.

Common Order:

1. Seeking to impugn the clarification issued by respondent No.1 to respondent No.2 stating that the paintings of leaves resembling the symbol of All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam party appearing on mini-buses plying in Chennai are to be suitably covered, the petitioner has filed Writ Petition No.7955 of 2014. Describing himself as a pro-bono publico, Writ Petition in W.P.No.8126 of 2014 has been filed by the petitioner, being a member of the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam party, seeking a direction on behalf of the general public to direct the respondents therein to dispose of the representation made on 14.3.2014, by which a clarification has been sought for as to whether the election symbol of the party is two or four leaves.

2. For the sake of brevity, we would like to decide the writ petition No.7955 of 2014, as the decision to be rendered would cast its shadow and encompass the prayer sought for in the other writ petition also.

3. Factual narration :

Respondent No.1, in pursuant to the notification issued, has undertaken the laborious and arduous task of conducting general elections to the Parliament of the largest democracy in the world. The election process is considered to be the biggest task ever undertaken covering 532 constituencies starting from Cape Comerin to Kashmir. The petitioner as well as respondent No.3 are two of the parties participating in the ensuing election to be conducted for the State of Tamil Nadu on 24.4.2014. A complaint was laid by respondent No.3 before respondent Nos.1 and 2 against the petitioner. Even though the complaint has got several facets, we are concerned in this writ petition on the paintings effected over the Government mini buses running in the city of Chennai. It is the grievance of respondent No.3 that they depict the symbol of the petitioner. A clarification was sought for by respondent No.2 before respondent No.1 which is produced as under :

"The issue of mini bus launched in Chennai, having paintings of leaves similar to that of AIADMK symbol, was raised during the Yercaud Bye-Election. Since these buses were not going to Yercaud, no decision was taken then on whether these symbols should be covered or not. Now that the General Election is to take place throughout the State, a decision needs to be taken whether to cover up the symbols on such buses or not." In response to the aforesaid clarification, the order impugned has been passed by respondent No.1. The following passage is apposite :

"3. The painting of leaves resembling AIADMK symbol appearing on mini buses plying in Chennai may be suitably covered so that it does not become mobile advertisements for that party."

Now this part of the proceedings of respondent No.1, dated 10.3.2014 is under challenge before us.

4. Submissions of the learned counsel for petitioner :

Shri R.Muthukumaraswamy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the order impugned is one without jurisdiction, power or authority. Admittedly, the act was done by the official respondents of the Government of Tamil Nadu much prior to the issuance of Notification. Therefore, for the act done preceding the notification, respondents No.1 and 2 do not have power to deal with. The order impugned is liable to be set aside for the violation of principles of natural justice. Admittedly, the petitioner has not been heard. The observations made upon the decision have civil consequences upon the petitioner. The symbol of the petitioner is "two leaves", whereas, what has been depicted on the side of the mini buses is a bunch of four leaves. The order passed is arbitrary and unreasonable. Accordingly, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the same is liable to be interfered with.

5. Submissions of the learned Advocate General :

Shri A.L. Somayaji, learned Advocate General appearing for the impleaded respondents 4 and 5 submitted that it is these respondents, who painted the pictures. They have not bee