SAVAKKATTUPALAYAM KALAIGNAR KARUNANITHY Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in the writ petition runs in the following terms:

(2.) In keeping with the decision in para 1 above, the Government further direct that the names of all existing institutions, buildings, bridges or other structures belonging to the State Government or Local Bodies or Co-operative Organisations or a Quasi-Government Body which have been named after tbS political leaders or Ministers who are alive, should be changed, deleting the names of such personalities. It is also hereby ordered that concurrence of the concerned administrative department in the Government should be obtained if new names are to be adopted for these institutions, buildings, bridges or other structures.

(3.) The Departments of Secretariat are also requested to review the existing orders on the subject, if any, and arrange to issue consequential amendments wherever necessary in accordance with the orders issued in paragraphs 1 and 2 above. (By Order of the Governor) V. Karthikeyan Chief Secretary to Government." The petitioner is a Co-operative Society registered with its present name under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (Act 53 of 1961), hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', long prior to the impugned Government Order. As we could see from its name, the petitioner is named after a living political leader. The grievance of the petitioner has arisen because subsequently the second-respondent issued a communication on 6-12-1979, informing the petitioner that in spite of the impugned Government Order, the petitioner has not changed its name, and carried out amendments to its Bye-laws, and if change is not effected before 31-12-1979, all the Government financial assistance and loans will be stopped with from 1-1-1980. As we could see from the prayer, the attack on the Government Order is only from the angle of the petitioner, which is a Co-operative Society registered under the Act, bearing the name of a living political leader. The registration of a Society under the Act has to satisfy the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. It is admitted that there is nothing in the provisions of the Act or the Rules, which inhibit the naming of a Society to be registered under the Act after any living person, including political leaders or Ministers. While this being so, to import an inhibition subsequently as has been done in the present case by the impugned Government Order cannot be sustained. The petitioner has been carrying on trade under a particular name and style for a considerable length of time. What would be the repercussions on its trade if it has got to change its name cannot be envisaged and predicted. The petitioner complains that it will have an adverse effect on its reputation which it has earned under a particular name, and it is only in this light there is a further complaint that the impugned Government Order so far as the petitioner is concerned affects its fundamental right to trade under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. It is true that there could be reasonable restrictions to provide for contingencies contemplated under Article 19 (6). Even these restrictions could be imposed only by law, including subordinate legislation. But, without Legislative Authority, the Executive cannot impose even these restrictions upon the fundamental right, guaranteed fey Article 19 (1) (g). The impugned Government Order cannot be elevated to the position of a law made by Legislation, including Subordinate Legislation. The Government or its Executive Officers cannot interfere with the fundametal light, guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution, unless they can point out some specific rule of law which authorises their acts. The impugned Government Order, in the present case, is destructive of the basic principle of the rule of law. Assuming that the restrictions, similar to those brought about by the impugned Government Order, could be imposed by law, even then it could be argued that they do not come within the purview of reasonable restrictions, within the meaning of Article 19 (6) The impugned Government Order is nothing but an expression of a particular view entertained by the first-respondent and from any angle it cannot be sustained so as to affect the right of the petitioner to carry on trade under a particular name. My attention has not been drawn to any law, which has prohibited the naming of a Co-operative Society after the living person, including political leaden or Ministers. Under these circumstances, I find that the grievance of the petitioner against the impugned Government order has got to be sustained, and accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Petition allowed.