The court upheld the rejection of petitioner's request to install a statue due to traffic congestion and adherence to Supreme Court guidelines on public space usage.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.213, dated 04.07.2019 passed by the first respondent (Revenue and Disaster Management Department) and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to grant permission to the petitioner-Association to install the statue of “Maveeran Sundaralinganar” in the place identified by the petitioner-Association. In connection with the said prayer, earlier, this Court, by order dated 08.01.2019 observed as follows in W.P.No.29958 of 2019:

“1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the first respondent by which the request made for the erection of the statue of freedom fighter, Maveern Sundaralinganar was declined.

2. When the matter is taken up for hearing today, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the Corporation of Madurai has submitted that the resolution made on 21.02.2011 still holds good. Therefore, statue can be erected as suggested in the resolution No.1027, dated 09.02.2011 in the specified place at the rountana.

3. In view of the above, without going into the merits of the case, the fifth respondent is directed to permit the petitioner to have the statue erected in tune with the resolution No.1027 of the Corporation of Madurai.

4. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of. However, the petitioner is permitted to make an application in tune with the above resolution within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the same, appropriate permission will have to be accorded by the fifth respondent within six weeks thereafter. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2015 are closed.”

2. Thereafter, the present writ petition W.P.No.194 of 2020 is filed before this Court as against the rejection of the erection of the statue by the concerned authority.

3. As stated above in the earlier round of litigation, aggrieved by the rejection order for installation of the statue, the petitioner has filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.29958 of 2014 seeking Mandamus to direct the Government to grant permission for installation of the statue of Sundaralinganaar. As against the rejection order of the respondent/Department, the petitioner’s grievance was considered by this Court and without going into the merits of the matter, this Court had directed the authorities to consider the request, pursuant to the passing of the Resolution by the Corporation of Madurai. Thereafter, application has been submitted by the present writ petitioner along with the copy of the Resolution passed by the Madurai Corporation, however, the same was considered and rejected by the authorities citing the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in S.L.P.(C).No.8519 of 2006 and other reasons.

4. The request of the petitioner was rejected for the following reasons:

(i) The proposed place falls under banned category of places specified by the Honourable Supreme Court of India in S.L.P.(C).No.8519 of 2006;

(ii) Three number of statues in one junction makes the junction heavily congested;

(iii) The installation of Maaveeran Sundaralinganar statue at a busy triangular road junction connecting flower, vegetable and fruit markets, Mattuthavani MGR Bus stand and Omni bus stand will cause additional hindrance to the movement of vehicles and pedestrians;

(iv) If the statues are installed at the junctions, the breadth of the road will become narrow, and view of the road becomes hindered, thereby road accidents happen.

(v) If the statue of community and political leaders are installed, the entire city traffic comes to a grinding halt and the general public are facing many hardship during celebrations. Being aggrieved, the present Writ Petition is filed for the relief stated supra.

5. The said G.O.Ms.No.213 was sought to be quashed on the ground that the respondents, having permitted to install the statues of