Back
2023 Supreme(Mad) 2836
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G.R. SWAMINATHAN, J.
Prakash – Appellant
Versus
The District Collector, Tirunelveli & Others – Respondents
W.P (MD) No. 22892 of 2023
Decided On : 16-09-2023
For the Petitioner:M/s. V. Moushica, for M/s. V. Ramasubbu, Advocates. For Respondents:S.S. Madhavan, Government Advocate.
The restraint on immersion of idols made with plaster of paris is a reasonable restriction, but preventing the sale of such idols would violate the petitioner's fundamental right to sell the articles made by him.
Headnote:
Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India guarantees the petitioner's right to sell the articles made by him. The court referred to the revised guidelines issued by the Central Pollution Control Board on idol immersions and held that they did not prevent the sale of idols. The court emphasized that if the idols were eco-friendly, their manufacture and sale could not be stopped. The court also prohibited the immersion of idols made with plaster of paris in water bodies. The court recognized the petitioner's right to sell the idols, subject to the condition of maintaining a register of purchasers.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an artisan from Rajasthan, made Vinayaka idols and was prevented from selling them by the authorities. He filed a writ petition seeking relief. The respondents argued that they were following the directions of the District Environmental Engineer and that the petitioner was using plaster of paris for making idols. The court considered the revised guidelines issued by the Central Pollution Control Board and held that if the idols were eco-friendly, they could be manufactured and sold. The court directed the petitioner to furnish details of the purchasers and allowed the sale of idols, but prohibited their immersion in water bodies. The court held that the restraint on immersion was a reasonable restriction, but preventing the sale would violate the petitioner's fundamental right. The writ petition was allowed.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the contentions of both parties and the materials on record. It referred to the revised guidelines on idol immersions and held that they did not prevent the sale of idols. The court emphasized that if the idols were eco-friendly, their manufacture and sale could not be stopped. It also stated that any act of prevention by the authorities would be illegal and could result in damages being paid for business loss. The court held that while immersion of idols containing plaster of paris was not permitted, their sales could not be prevented. The petitioner was directed to maintain a register of purchasers and allow inspection by the respondents. The court clarified that the installation of eco-friendly idols could not be stopped, but their immersion in water bodies was prohibited. The court recognized the petitioner's right to sell the articles made by him as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the sale of eco-friendly idols cannot be prevented by the authorities, but their immersion in water bodies is prohibited. The restraint on immersion is a reasonable restriction, but preventing the sale would violate the petitioner's fundamental right.
Result: The court allowed the writ petition, directed the respondents not to prevent the petitioner from selling the idols, and required the petitioner to maintain a register of purchasers. There was no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus by directing the first respondent not to interfere into my right of profession /business by selling idols inclusive of Lord Vinayaga idols which has been guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.)
1. Heard both sides.
2. Lord Vinayaka symbolizes luck. He is worshipped by Hindus who believe that He will remove all obstacles. It was the great patriot Sri. Bal Gangadhar Tilak who organized Ganesh Chaturthi Processions. They have helped to unify the society by cutting across caste differences. The right to organize Vinayakar Chaturthi processions is not the subject matter of this writ petition and I therefore refrain from going into the issue.
3. Tomorrow the nation observes Vishwakarma jayanthi. Vishwakarma is particularly worshipped by artisans and workers. Vishwakarma is the supreme architect. It is ironic that the petitioner who is a Rajasthani artisan engaged in making Vinayaka idols is encountering difficulties at the hands of the authorities.
4. The petitioner hails from Rajasthan. He and his team are presently in Palayamkottai for the purpose of making idols. He has made a few scores of Vinayaka idols . His grievance is that the third respondent, on instructions from the respondents 1 and 2 is preventing him from selling the idols that have already been made. The petitioner is said to have borrowed a substantial sum. If he is unable to sell the idols, he will be financially ruined. For forbearing the respondents from interfering with his right , the present writ petition came to be filed.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated all the contentions set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and called upon the Court to grant relief as prayed for.
6. The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents submitted that the respondents have merely complied with the direction issued by the District Environmental Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Tirunelveli. My attention has been drawn to the revised guidelines issued by the Central Pollution Control Board as well as G.O.Ms. No.598 dated 09.08..2018. He placed reliance on the order of the Hon''ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P(MD) No.21124 of 2023 dated 31.08.2023. He also contended that since complaint was received from the jurisdictional Village Administrative Officer that the petitioner is using plaster of paris for making idols, the impugned action came to be taken. He pointed out the police have not arrested the petitioner; they have only prevented the petitioner from selling the idols and nothing more. He called upon this Court to dismiss the writ petition.
7. I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record.
8. The Hon''ble First Bench of this Court vide order dated 31.08.2023 in W.P(MD) No. 21124 of 2023 took note of the revised guidelines issued by the Central Pollution Board with regard to the idol immersions. As the very title would suggest, they contain norms for idol immersion. Such guidelines would not come in the way of the petitioner from selling the idols as such.
9. If the idols are eco- friendly, they can be manufactured and sold and such activities cannot be stopped for any reason. If the police or the authorities indulge in any act of prevention, that would be rank illegality. They will have to answer if the aggrieved individual invokes public law remedy. Damages will have to be paid for the business loss caused.
10. In this case, the petitioner claims that the plaster of paris has been used only up to permissible level. According to him, the buyers may want the same for any purpose. They could be installed at homes or temples or even marriage halls. While I endorse the said contention, I make it clear that immersion of idols containing plaster of paris cannot be permitted. But their sales cannot be prevented by t
