IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 07.10.2021 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P. No.23140 of 2014 and M.P.Nos. 1 and 2 of 2014 M.Veeraraghavan ...Petitioner Vs.

1.The Home Secretary Government of Tamilnadu Secretariat Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

2.The District Collector, Vellore District, Vellore.

3.The Tahsildar, Office of the Tahsildar, Arakonam Taluk Vellore District.

4.The Village Panchayat President, Kainoor Village Panchayat Arakonam Taluk Vellore District. ...Respondents Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the entire records connected with the impugned notice issued by the 3^rd respondent in Na.Ka.P1/Pa.Ve.154/2014 dated 21.08.2014 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.P.S.Amal Raj For Respondents : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan Government Advocate

O R D E R

The Writ of Certiorari has been instituted to quash the notice issued by the third respondent in proceedings dated 21.08.2014. The notice impugned contemplates that any violation of the Rules and guidelines issued for maintenance of Meikkal poramboke and without getting any permission from the competent authority, the petitioner along with some persons erected a statue of Dr.B.R.Ambedkar. Under those circumstances, the authority competent directed for the removal of the said statue.

2. The petitioner states that he is residing in Kainoor Kandigai Village, Arakkonam Taluk and is a practising Advocate and a law abiding citizen. The petitioner claims himself as a social activist. A resolution was passed to install Dr.B.R.Ambedkar statue in the Kainoor Kandigai Village in the panchayat meeting headed by the Village Panchayat President. In view of the fact that the Village Panchayat has passed a resolution and erected a statue, the order impugned is perverse and is liable to be set aside.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that the said statue of the great leader is not affected the public at large in that locality and therefore, the said statue must be allowed to remain in the same place.

4. Per contra, the learned Government counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has stated that the statue is erected in the Meikkal poramboke and without obtaining permission from the competent authorities. Thus, it is not only in violation of Statute and Rules, but in violation of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as well as the Hon’ble Division Bench of the High Court of Madras. Thus, there is no infirmity as such in respect of the order impugned passed by the authorities.

5. The learned Government counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents reiterated that the State Government has not granted any permission for construction of Statues in any form or structures in public places including the Highways and Roads, after an interim order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the year 2012. Therefore, any construction of statue, structures or buildings in the Government property Meikkal poramboke or otherwise is not authorized or permitted by the Government and in such circumstances, the authorities competent have to issue notice and initiate appropriate action for the purpose of replacement or removal, as the case may be, in order to uphold the provisions of the Statute and in implementation of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

6. The written instructions furnished by the Tahsildar, Arakkonam to the Government Pleader, High Court also reveals that the order impugned was passed pursuant to the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (Civil) No.8519 of 2006 dated 18.01.2013. Thus, the authorities have no option but to implement the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and therefore, there is no infirmity as such in respect of the order impugned. In the very same instructions, the Tahsildar has categorically stated that the said statue is the subject matter in the present w