GOVT OF T N Vs. CHINGLEPUT DRAVIDAR KAZHAGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of Mohan, J. whereby the learned Judge quashed the proceedings of the appellant herein and the second respondent by which the request of the first-respondent to install a statue of Thanthai Periyar E.-V. E.V. Ramaswami, the Founder-Leader of Dravida Kazhagam at a particular place in the Municipal Town of Kancheepuram was declined. It will be convenient if we refer to the parties as they stood arrayed in the Writ Petition.

(2.) The first respondent herein was the petitioner, the second respondent was the first respondent and the appellant herein was the second-respondent in the Writ Petition. In the year 1974, there was a decision by the members of the Chengalpattu District Dravida Kazhagam to install a statue of Thamthai Periyar E.V. Ramaswami and a Committee was formed in this behalf under the Chairmanship of C.P. Rajamanickam, President of the petitioner-Kazhagam, to install and erect the statue at Kancheepuram near Gangai Kondan Mandapam initially in Survey No.1865 and subsequently changed to in Municipal S.No.1974/2 in Survey Ward No.4, Block No.25. The requisite application, therefor, was made through one P.A. Rangan, a member of the Kancheepuram Municipal Council, for sanction and permission and he undertook to bear the entire expense. On 30-9-1974 by resolution No.459, the Municipal Council accepted the said application and resolved to give permission for the installation of the statue. On 7-6-1975, the Divisional Engineer, Highways, Cheengalpattu, informed the first respondent that the local body should undertake the further maintenance of the statue, for which a resolution is required, and further the individual who intended to erect the statue should be directed to remit 20 per cent of the cost of the statue for future maintenance. On 30-6-1975 by resolution No. 167, the Municipal Council resolved with reference to the proposal to install the statue that the Municipality agrees for the maintenance of the statue. On 5-7-1975, the Municipal Council directed the said Rangan to deposit 20 per cent of the cost of the statue. On 15-7-1975, a sum of Rs.200/- was deposited estimating the cost of the statue at Rs.1,000/-. It is stated that the pedestal for the installation of the statue was erected in Dec.1975. While so, there were certain objections by their parties for the installation of the statue in the concerned place. On 27-8-1976, by resolution No.310, the Municipal Council, taking note of the objections for the installation of the statue, resolved that no further action need be taken. On 6-5-1978, the petitioner requested for early orders for the installation of the statue because that was the centenary year of Thanthai Periyar E.V. Ramaswami. On 28-6-1978, the following particulars were called for from the petitioner : (i) The cost of the statue. (ii) The measurements and plan for the base of the statue. (iii) The topo-sketch of the area around the site for about 300 feet. On 8-8-1978, these particulars were furnished by the petitioner. On 22-8-1978, the petitioner deposited a further sum of Rs.540/-estimating the cost of the statue at Rs.3,700/-. On 23-8-1978, by resolution No.320, the Municipal Council resolved to grant permission for the erection of the statue after obtaining the no objection certificates from the concerned authorities and after obtaining the sanction of the second respondent. On 30-8-1978, the Divisional Engineer, Highways, Chengalpattu, addressed the Superintending Engineer, Highways, Madras, recommending the erection of the statue. The Superintending Engineer, Highways, Madras, on 31-8-1978 also made his recommendation to the Chief Engineer, Highways, Madras, for the erection of the statue and sought permission from the second respondent. Their opinion was that the erection of the statue will not be a hindrance to the free flow of traffic and it will also not affect the future widening of the street. On 13-9-1978, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kancheepuram, reported that there was no objection for the erection of the statue in the concerned survey number which is classified as Town Site poramboke subject to the condition that the existing two encroachments should be evicted. On 13-9-1978, the Superintendent of Police, Chengalpattu, also informed that there is no objection for the issue of a "No Objection" Certificate to the applicant from the traffic and police point of view. On 13-9-1978, the Collector of Chengalpattu, after referring to the above reports, made his recommendation in the following terms;

(3.) Before Mohan J, who heard the Writ petition, two questions were argued at length. One is, on the facts, the principle of promissory estoppel would apply and if so applied, the respondents shall be precluded from going back on the assurances given to the petitioner with regard to the installation of the statue. The second is that all public streets in the Municipality, with the pavements, stones and other materials thereof vest in the Municipality under S.61 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act 5 of 1920, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' and in the absence of withdrawal of such vesting by the second-respondent, from the control of the Municipality, the resolutions of the Municipal Council must stand and govern. Ancillary to this submission, there was an argument that there is a power reserved for the first-respondent to rescind the resolution of the Municipal Council under S.36 of the Act and since in the present case no such power has been exercised, the resolutions of the Municipal Council must hold good and be implemented. In our view, all these questions are intermingled and there is no need to consider them disjointedly and in disassociation with one another. The learned Judge opined that under S.61 of the Act, the vesting does not admit of any qualification and in the absence of withdrawal of the vesting under sub-sec.2 of S.61 of the Act, the Municipal Council should have the absolute control over the concerned pieces of land and the Municipal Council is bound by its resolutions and the principle of promissory estoppel will come into play to the rescue of the petitioner. The learned Judge also adverted to S.36 of the Act and on the ground that the power under S.36 was not exercised and the concerned resolutions were not cancelled, held that the second-respondent had no competency to pass the impugned order dt. 13-10-1978 as it did. In this view, the learned Judge thought fit to interfere in writ jurisdiction and accordingly the Writ Petition was allowed.