T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.

These writ appeals have been preferred by the writ petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.9628 of 2015 and 16313 of 2013.

2. Both the matters pertain to same issue relating to the statue of a Freedom Fighter erected by the appellant in his property.

3. W.P.(MD) No.16313 of 2013 was filed by the appellant to forbear the respondents from causing any obstruction in the unveiling of statue of the Freedom Fighter Theeran Chinnamalai to be held on his Birth Anniversary on 15.11.2013 in the property of the appellant - Sangam called as Gounder Maha Jana Sangam, Alanganallur, Madurai District.

4. Along with the said writ petition, another writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.18319 of 2013 was filed by the General Secretary, Tamilnadu Valayarkula Mutharaiar Munnettra Sangam, challenging the proceedings of the District Collector, Madurai, dated 21.01.2012, in and by which permission for construction of statue of Perarasar Perumpidugu Muthariyar was refused.

5. Both the writ petitions were dismissed, by a common order dated 17.04.2014, issuing certain directions.

6. The appellant is not aggrieved by all such directions issued by the Writ Court, except for those as contained in Paragraph Nos.12(ii) and (iv), which state that the statue should be located 100 feet away from the main road entrance and it should be at a moderate elevated level. It is contended that those conditions cannot be imposed on the appellant as the statue had been erected much prior to the directions issued by the Court and at best, the directions can be made applicable prospectively for other cases. Therefore, the scope of the writ appeal in W.A.(MD) No.1402 of 2016 is limited to the said extent.

7. Writ appeal in W.A.(MD) No.1079 of 2016 has been filed challenging the order, dated 08.01.2016, made in W.P.(MD) No.9628 of 2015, whereby the relief sought for by the appellant to give permission to unveil the statue of the Freedom Fighter Theeran Chinnamalai in the Association's land was dismissed primarily on the ground for similar relief, the appellant had approached this Court earlier and the writ petition has been dismissed.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant, after reiterating the factual aspect, submitted that the appellant is not aggrieved by the conditions imposed in W.P.(MD) No.16313 of 2013, but in fact, he has complied with the conditions for installing CCTV Camera etc., but the distance of 100 feet cannot be insisted upon and the statue is located in a private Patta land at a height of more than 20 feet and it is well away from the main road, which was sought to be clarified by producing photographs.

9. Further, it is submitted that the legal position, which has been settled by the Court in the case of P.Maniyarasan v. The Government of Tamil Nadu, reported in 2011 (1) CWC 379 and in the case of the District Collector, Madurai and others v. N.E.Rajasudhan, President, Puthiya Neethi Katchi, W.A.(MD) No.547 of 2016, dated 25.04.2016, are clearly in favour of the appellant and the respondents cannot prevent or prohibit the appellant from erecting the statue in his own land and the Government Orders and Guidelines cannot be a law.

10. Further, it is pointed out that the appeal filed by the District Collector, Madurai, in W.A.(MD) No.547 of 2016, was dismissed and the statue of V.O.Chidambaranar, a National Leader, has been erected in the Patta land belonging to the Sangam and the appellant's case is no different. Further, it is submitted that the appellant's building is situated well away from the main road and the statue is on top of the entrance, which leads to a School and all safeguards have been made and the objections raised by the respondents are frivolous.

11. Further, it is submitted that though directions have been issued by the Writ Court in the earlier writ petition, till date the officials have not passed any orders. Therefore, the second writ petition was filed, as there was a fresh cause of action for the appellant in the light of the d