ORDER

The event conducted by the political party of the petitioner, which has resulted in quarrel and in violation of the conditions imposed by the law enforcing agency resulting in property damage has resulted in the issuance of the impugned proceedings and notice by the 1st respondent, which has resulted in the filing of the present writ petition.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that Pattali Makkal Katchi is one of the political parties in the State of Tamil Nadu, which critically analyzes the policies, acts and deeds of the Government, both State and Centre and makes unbiased comments and is functioning in the larger interest of the public. The present petition is the off-shoot of the event which was held by the petitioner on 25.4.2013 after obtaining requisite permission from the law enforcing agency. It is the further case of the petitioner that during the said event, wordy quarrel arose, which resulted in damage to the property. The law enforcing agency arrested the party workers and party members.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that as a consequence of the same, demonstration and agitation was contemplated on 30.4.2013 in which more than 500 members participated and also party members of Vanniar Sangam had also participated in which stones were pelted on vehicle and public property was damaged, including damage to the RCC slab culvert at Mailam-Pondy road using Gel Type Detonator. It is the further case of the petitioner that the cost of the damage was assessed at Rs.18 Lakhs and a case in crime No.110/2013 was registered on the file of the Inspector of Police, Vanur Police Station, Villupuram District u/s 427, 307 IPC r/w 4 of Explosives Act and Section 3 of PPDL Act. It is the further case of the petitioner that even according to the FIR, the accused are unknown persons and the investigation is said to be pending. It is the further case of the petitioner that no member of the petitioner’s party was involved in the said crime and no proof thereof has been submitted.

4. Whileso, the 1st respondent, without appreciating the aforesaid facts, erroneously entertained the application of the 2nd respondent and issued summons to the petitioner herein for enquiry on 24.7.2013 to which the petitioner appeared on the said day along with its counsel and also appeared on the subsequent dates. It is the further case of the petitioner that the application filed by the 2nd respondent before the 1st respondent u/s 10 (2) is not maintainable in law and the same is a sheer abuse of process of law and the entertaining of the said application is without jurisdiction. Therefore, the present petition is filed.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegations leveled against the petitioner party would not attract Sections 9 and 10 of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, (for short ‘PPDL Act’). It is the further submission of the learned counsel that even the first information report was registered against unknown persons and there is no proof that the members of the petitioner’s party involved themselves in the said crime. In the absence of any conviction against any person belonging to the party, fixing liability for compensation on the petitioner u/s 9 of the Act giving cause of action u/s 10 of the Act. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that when no person is found guilty and conviction awarded, the claim raised u/s 10 of the Act directing the petitioner to pay the amount is per se unsustainable and clearly reveals non application of mind on the part of the 1st respondent.

6. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the provisions of the Act, read as a whole would clearly show that the right to claim compensation and the liability against any person or party or a group u/s 9 and 10 of the Act would arise only if an offence punishable under the Act has been committed, which would arise only if the FIR ends in conviction. Further, the said los