LAWS(MAD)-1993-8-10

V BALASUNDARAM Vs. CHIEF MINISTER OF TAMIL NADU

Decided On August 20, 1993
V.BALASUNDARAM Appellant
V/S
CHIEF MINISTER OF TAMIL NADU Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned Government Pleader is present and he is directed to take notice. Accordingly, we have heard him.

(2.) . This writ appeal is preferred against the order dated 23/07/1993 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petitions 12798 and 12883 of 1993. The petitioner in Writ Petition 12833 of 1993 is the appellant in this writ appeal.

(3.) In the writ petitions, the petitioners sought for quashing the order bearing G.O.Ms. No. 366 dated 11/05/1993, naming one of the Districts in the State as 'Villupuram Ramasamy Padayatchiar District'. Alternatively, it was also prayed that the appellation 'Padayatchiar' to the name of Ramasamy be directed to be dropped as according to the petitioner, it is a caste appellation. Learned single Judge has rejected the writ petition. During the course of the order, learned single Judge has also observed that the petitioners have looked at the whole issue with the jaundiced eye. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that as 'Padayatchiar' denotes the caste and the whole object of the constitution is to establish a casteless society, the very act of the State Government leads to encouraging a particular caste and it also creates an apprehension in the mind of the residents of the District, which consists of several communities that Padayatchiars would have an upper hand over the others. Learned senior counsel has also placed reliance on the preamble to the Constitution, Articles 14, 17 and 38 and also certain observations made in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217. Learned senior counsel has specifically referred to paragraphs 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 399 (of SCC) : (Paragraphs 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148 and 371 of AIR). Of course, during the course of the arguments, learned senior counsel also referred to S. 189 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, S. 228 of the City Corporation Act, S. 266 of the Madurai Corporation Act and also to S. 266 of the Coimbatore Corporation Act. The provisions contained therein relate to naming the street with the approval of the State Government. So, at the outset, we may say that those provisions have no relevancy.