AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.M. Abdul Wahab, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the President, Thamizh Maanila Thiagi Dheeran Chinnamalai Gounder Narpani Manuram, for issue of a writ of Mandamus directing the Government of Tamilnadu and the Secretary for Information and Tourism Department to forbear from proceeding with the unveiling of the statue of Thiagi Dheeran Chinnamalai. without due effective participation of the already constituted Committee Members as constituted by the Government of Tamilnadu during 1995.
The facts alleged in the affidavit in support of the writ petition are given below briefly: Dheeran Chinnamalai, martyr belonging to Knogu Vallalar community hailed from Melapalayam Village in Erode District. He got trained under the Warrior Thipu Sultan of Mysore and waged three battles against the British regime at Bhavani, Odamangalam and Arachalur. He succeeded in two battles in Bhavani and Odamangalam, but was defeated at Arachalur due to internal conspiracy. He was hanged at Sankagiri by the British Government.
To perpetuate the memory of Dheeran Chinnamalai, the former Chief Minister J. Jayalalitha,''took steps. A committee was constituted with forty-one members. The Petitioner was one among them. Apart from the contribution of the Government, there were collections from public and contribution by the committee members. An expenditure of Rs. 25 lakhs was incurred and Bronze statue was fully made, which could pictures the said Dheeran Chinnamalai riding on a horse back and the statue was installed at the entrance of Guindy Industrial Estate on G.S.T. Road. Though arrangements were made to unveil the statue in April, 1996, on account of the Election Commission information not to hold public function, the function could not take place.
After the election, there was change of Government. No efforts were taken by the new Government to unveil the statue inspite of several representation made by the Petitioner and other members of the Committee. Suddenly an announcement was made to the effect that the statue would be unveiled under the auspices of Manila Kongu Vellala Peravai. As a member of the Committee, the Petitioner felt very sad over the developments. The persons, ? who contributed their labour, might etc., were sidelined and placed into darkness and persons who had nothing to do in the matters have been focussed. The Government of Tamilnadu cannot change the committee already in existence with forty one dignitaries, who contributed their might. It is not the case of the Government that the old committee has been dissolved and a fresh committee has been formed. Without even informing the committee members, the Government cannot proceed with the function. Steps taken by the Government has not to be condemned. Hence, the Petitioner has moved this Hon''ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the equitable remedy. The Petitioner is having locus standi. The function should be conducted in consultation with the committee of forty-one members. As the function has been fixed on 4.10.98, it should not be permitted. Hence, urgent order of injunction should be granted.
When the writ petition was moved by the Petitioner''s counsel Thiru N. Jothi, the learned Government pleader Thiru K.P.H. Thulasiraman, opposed the admission and wanted time to make his submission after getting instructions from the Respondents 1 and 2. Hence, the writ petition was adjourned to 30.9.98 to be heard at 2:15 p.m. Hence, the writ petition was taken up at 2:15 p.m. on 30.9.98.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner Thiru N. Jothi, submitted that the committee constituted by the Government has spent about Rs. 25 lakhs for making the statue and unveiling it. The members of the committee contributed their labour, money etc. Hence, without their effective participation, the Government cannot unveil the statue. He even went to the extent of contending that the statue actually belonged to the Committee and without Committee''s permission, the Government has no right to unveil it.
Thiru Habibulla Badsha, Senior Counsel and Former Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the Government, contended that the petition for Mandamus is not maintainable as the Petitioner has no right to participate in the function and there was no duty cast upon the Government to invite all the members of the Committee. However, the learned senior counsel stated that invitations have been extended to some of the members of the Committee. The learned senior counsel further contended that the prayer in the writ petition is very vague. Further, it was argued by the learned senior counsel that the Committee, of which the Petitioner claims to be the member, was not constituted by the Government, only the then Minister for Rural Industries constituted it in his personal capacity. Finally, the learned Senior counsel contended that the function has been arranged in the same manner as it was done by the previous Government and he referred to the invitation published by the previous Government and the present one in support of his contention.
The Petitioner has filed the present writ petition for a direction against the Government to forbear from unveiling the statue of Dheeran Chinnamalai without his committee''s effective participation. The Petitioner can succeed only if he is able to establish that his committee or himself has right to compel the Government to invite himself and the other members of the Committee to take effective part in the function. According to him, the committee known as "Dheeran Chinnamalai Gounder Selai Amaippu Kuzhu" was constituted by the Government. But the said fact has been vehemently denied by the Respondents.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner relies upon the letters sent by the then Minister for Rural Industries to him and the members of the Committee. In the letter dated'' 16.8.95, the Minister has communicated the resolutions dated 16.8.1995 adopted by "The Dheeran Chinnamalai Gounder Selai Amaippu Kuzhu". From the letter, it is seen that on 16.8.95, the Committee has passed the resolutions in the Secretariat. Resolution No. 2 is as follows:
(2).
From the above, I am able to see that a Committee known an Dheeran Chinnamalai Gounder Selai Amaippu Kuzhu constituted under the president ship of the then Minister for Rural Industries in the Secretariat and passed several resolutions.
From the resolution No. 2 I am able to find out that the Committee has thanked the then Chief Minister for allotting a place, contributing a sum of Rs. l lakh for erecting the statue and constituting a Committee. No doubt, the Chief Minister can be stated to have constituted a committee. The Government Pleader has produced the file relating to the erection and unveiling of five statues, including Dheeran Chinnamalai. The notes leading to the issue of G.O. Ms. No. 64 Information and Tourism (M&A) Department, dated 29.3.1996 and the final text of the Government order are available in the file. The then Chief Minister has approved the erection of five statues as early as on 16.10.95 itself. In January, 1996, it is seen that the making of the statue were already entrusted to different sculptors and the work was nearing completion. Even though several notes are found in the file. I am not able to see from the file that the Government at any time contemplated constitution of a committee as stated by the Petitioner in the affidavit and the resolution mentioned above. From the records produced in this case, I am not in a position to agree with the contention of the counsel for the Petitioner that the committee was constituted by the Government. From the resolution No. 2 of the Committee, it can only be inferred that the committee was constituted by the then Minister for Rural Industries and a resolution has been passed by the Committee to thank the Chief Minister for the initiative taken by the Chief Minister.
11.. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the Government constituted the Committee, can it assert as a matter of right that it should be given an effective role in the unveiling of the statue. The Committee has not passed any resolution as regards the unveiling of the statue. The letter dated 11.12.1995 sent by the then Minister for Rural Industries, does not state that the Committee should arrange the function for the unveiling of the statue. On the other hand, the Minister states that for publishing the souvenir on behalf of the Committee some particulars are called for from the members of the Committee, including the Petitioner. There is also no evidence available in this case that the task of unveiling of the statue was entrusted to the Committee alone/From the file, it is seen that though the Government took a decision to erect and unveil the statues of five great personalities, the Government has not entrusted the function to erect the statue to any Committee, because it has entrusted the work to a particular sculptor and there is also evidence to show that the sculptor submitted his bill for making the bronze statue, at a cost of Rs. 2.75 lakhs. The bill was submitted to the Director, Information and Public Relations. The Deputy Director, Publication, has certified that the statue has been erected by R. Jagannathan & Co., Artists & Sculptors. If the committee was entrusted with the arrangements for collecting the funds, erecting the statue and unveiling it, the Committee would have done these things. But there is so evidence produced in this case by the Petitioner that the statue was made and erected by the Committee with their funds and that too at a cost of Rs. 25 lakhs. They have not produced any bill or receipt. Under what terms, the Committee has been constituted. Is the Committee given the right to unveil the statue. There is absolutely no evidence produced by the Petitioner on these vital aspects.
From the aforesaid facts, in my view, the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Government constituted the Committee and the Committee alone made arrangements to make the statue and erect it at its cost is under challenge. On the other hand, the documentary evidence produced by the Respondents is against such a claim.
When confronted with this situation, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner attempts to rely upon equity. According to the learned Counsel, when there is no contractual or statutory right in favour of a person, some equitable right can be presumed in his favour on account of certain actions taken by him or performed by him. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon that the Committee consisting 41 members formed into different sub-committee and collected information about the Hero, for whom the statue is to be unveiled, arranged for publishing a souvenir, built the pedestal etc. Even though from the typed set of papers it is seen that committee and sub-committees have been constituted, not even a single paper has been produced by the Petitioner to show that the members of the Committee or the sub-committees did perform any of the acts alleged or entrusted to them. To give one example, even though it is said that they have constituted a committee for publishing a souvenir, the souvenir has not been produced before the Court. As regards the pedestal, Respondent''s file shows that the Government has spent Rs. 1,50,000/- for the erection of the same. Further, it is seen that on an earlier occasion when the statue was to be unveiled on 22.3.1996, it is the Government, who have spent Rs. 2.5, lakhs for printing invitation, banner, post etc., This is evidenced by the Government Order G.O.(T) No. 45, Information and Tourism Department, dated 29.03.1996..
When we refer to the invitation for the unveiling of the statue on 22.3.1996, it has been published only by the Director, Information and Public Relations. The then "Rural Industries Minister is shown to be incharge of reception. It is also stated that he is described at the Hon''ble Minister for .. Rural Industries and President of the Statue Committee and he had to deliver the welcome address, felicitation speeches were to be delivered by the then Ministers hailing from the area of Kongu Vellalar Gounders, from where the Hero Dheeran Chinnamalai hailed. In addition to that Thiruvalargal Nalla Sanapathy Sarkarai Mandradiyar, President, Kongu Vellalar Welfare Mandram, Best Ramasami, Chairman, Kongu Vellalar Gounders Progressive Federation and P. Devarajan, Kongu Friends Society Chairman made felicitation speeches. Excepting the Minister for Rural Industries and other Ministers hailing from the area, the others who took part in the felicitation were Thiruvalargal Nalla Senapathy Sarkarai Mandradiyar, Best Ramasami, and P. Devarajan. So, from the earlier invitation also, it cannot be said that all the members of the committee including the Petitioner herein were given any role to play in the unveiling function. From this also, one can infer that the role of the member of the Committee was not prominent or effective as claimed by the Petitioner now in this writ petition, even when the previous Government arranged for the unveiling function. The Petitioner has not raised any objection at that time. We have to note here that the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has praised the arrangements.
The effective role played by the members of the Committee is not to be seen from the earlier invitation. In the absence of evidence, I am not in a position to agree with the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that all the members of the Committee took active part for the making of the statue and the unveiling of it. It may be true that they played some role in bringing out a souvenir published on the occasion. But even in respect of this, it cannot be said that the Committee or that sub-committees alone exclusively was in charge of bringing out the souvenir or releasing some books relating to the Hero and the Government had no role at all in these matters. The details about the printing, publication etc., will be known only when the souvenir itself is produced before the Court.''
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner attempted to point out that the Government had not spent the amount for the making of the statue, the building of the pedestal etc., and these were done by the committee only. First of all, in the absence of any documentary evidence on side of the Petitioner for payment of the cost of the statue to the sculptor and the amounts relating to the expenses for erecting pandal. we have to accept the evidence produced by Respondents. From the file, we are able to find out the Sculptor''s bill and a statement that a sum of Rs. 1.5 lakhs was spent for building the pedestal. It is also worthwhile to note that for the two unveiling functions Rs. 5.50 lakhs been spent. The amount has been sanctioned by the Government and entrusted to the Accounts Officer of the department of Information and Tourism. The heading of the account under which the amount should be debated is also mentioned. From the evidence on record, I am not in a position to believe the allegation of the Petitioner that the committee had spent about Rs. 25 lakhs for the purpose of making the statue, building the pedestal and arranging for the unveiling function in the earlier occasion. Therefore, from the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the Committee has not spend the said sum for the aforesaid purposes.
When the committee has not spend for the making of the statue, building pedestal and making arrangements for the unveiling function, the only thing that the committee could have done is to collect some information about the Hero and publish a book and a souvenir. From these acts alone, it is not possible to arrive at a conclusion that the Committee has acquired any equitable right which entitles the member or the committee to have an effective participation in the unveiling function. At the most, they have assisted the Government to some extent, that is voluntary and not for any consideration. There is also no promise or assurance given by the Government that for the purpose of the aforesaid acts, the Committee would be given an effective role to play in the unveiling function. Therefore, I am not in a position to agree with the counsel for the Petitioner that the committee has acquired some equitable right to compel the Government to invite them and give an effective role in the unveiling ceremony.-
Article 226 confers upon the High Court in extraordinary jurisdiction. The remedy available under it is discretionary. At one stage, writ of Mandamus was limited to enforcement of fundamental rights and statutory obligations. Nowadays, mandamus are issued for enforcing contracts obligations of public authorities to some extent. ''Equity'' means fairness, the application of general principles of justice to correct or supplement the law. ''Equity'' does not create a right in an individual. It enables, sometimes even compels, an authority to act fairly. It steps in to grant the relief or remedy, when such a relief or remedy is not available legally. Therefore, ''equity'' presupposes some ''right'' in the person, the ''right'' acquired by or ensured in an individual by Constitution, contract statue or custom. In the absence of such a right in a person, he has no ''locus standi'' to move a Court of law or equity to exercise its jurisdiction.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner seriously commented upon the discrepancies in the two Government Orders i.e., G.O. Ms. No. 6 Information and Tourism (M & A) Department, dated 29.3.1996 and G.O.(T) No. 45 Information and Tourism Department, dated 29.3.1996, In G.O. Ms. No. 64 dt 29.3.1996, there is a statement that the Government decided to entrust the work of making the statue to the sculptor and allotted funds for the same. While in G.O.(T) No. 45, dated 29.3.1996, it is stated that all arrangements were made for the unveiling of the statue of Dheeran Chinnamalai Gounder on 22.3.1996 and it could not be performed for some reason, even though all expenses have been made in connection with the function. From the file produced by the Government pleader, we are able to see that the decision for making and unveiling the statue of Dheeran Chinnamalai Gounder was taken by the Government as early as in October, 1995. In January, 1996 itself the statue are almost completed. There is also a statement that as per the Order of the Chief Minister, the work of making the statues were entrusted to different sculptors already. In the circumstances, as rightly contended by the learned Government pleader that the Government Order has been issued only for the purpose of sanctioning of the necessary funds. In a substance, it is in ratification of the acts already taken and completed and for enabling the Government to make payment to the sculptors. That apart from the discrepancies contained in the Government Order, it cannot be concluded that the Government has not spent for making the statue, building the pedestal etc.
The learned Counsel for the Respondents raised a plea of want of locus standi to maintain the writ petition by the Petitioner. The Petitioner is no doubt a member of the Committee called Dheeran Chinnamalai Gounder Selai Amaippu Kuzhu. In the affidavit, there is no allegation that the said committee is a registered body.
There is no averment in the affidavit that the committee passed any resolution authorising him to file the writ petition. It is also not stated that he is filing the writ petition on behalf of other members of the Committee. I have already found that the committee itself has no right to compel the Government to invite its members to have an effective participation in the unveiling function. Therefore, I need not dwell much upon this aspect. However, from the averments in the affidavit and from the documents produced in the typed set of papers, the Petitioner has filed this Writ petition only in his individual ? capacity. Certainly it cannot be on behalf of the members of the Committee, because in the present function for unveiling the statue on 4.10.1998 Thiruvalargal M.S.S. Mandra-diar, R. Veeramani, Devarajan, are also participating. They are members of the committee. Thiru R. Veeramani is the Chairman of the pedestal and park subcommittee. Thiru N.S.S,Mandradiar, is stated to be the chairman of the sub-committee for the preparation of the life history of Dheeran Chinnamalai Gounder. It is seen from the new invitation that three of the prominent members of the old committee are also participating in the present function. On the previous function only three members of the committee, apart from the member from the area alone were to take part. The Petitioner lias not shown that apart from the three members, any other member or himself participated in the function, which was to be held on 22.3.1996. Therefore, I am not in a position to hold that the Petitioner is a representative of all the members of the committee. As already stated that he has not averred anywhere in the affidavit that the committee has passed any resolution authorising him to file the writ petition. In the circumstances, it has to be concluded that the Petitioner is not having locus standi to maintain the writ petition on behalf of the committee. However, it can be treated as a writ petition filed by him individually. As I have already found that the committee itself has no enforceable right in it or in its members, the writ petition for issuance of a Mandamus cannot be maintained.
The learned Counsel for the Respondents contended that the prayer in the writ petition is very vague, since it states that "without the effective participation of the members of the Committee, the Respondents should be prevented from proceeding with the unveiling function."
The learned Senior Counsel for the Respondents contended that effective participation means taking active part in reception and addressing the gathering. In the function to be conducted on 4.10.1998, Thiruvalargal N.S.S. Mandradiyar, R. Veeramani and Devarajan are taking part in delivering the welcome address and in the felicitation address. In the previous occasion, the then Minister was to deliver the welcome address. Now as he is no longer a Minister, another person from the area has been given the chance. Some ministers from the area are also participating in the function. Again three members of the committee are taking part in the felicitation. Therefore, the grievance of the Petitioner that he has not been given any role to play in the function cannot be taken note of, since he has not been given any such role even on the earlier occasion, as is seen from the invitation printed for the function on 22.3.1996. So, the Petitioner cannot be said to have a genuine or real grievance.
The learned senior counsel for the Respondents raised two other contentions, namely laches on the part of the Petitioner in filing the writ petition in the last minute and want of a balance of convenience in favour of the Petitioner. As the counsel for the Petitioner as well as the Senior counsel for the Respondents had advanced lengthy arguments on the merits in the writ petition itself, there is no necessity for me to consider the issues of laches and balance of convenience. Since, the writ petition has been heard in full, the question of laches for maintaining the writ petition need not be considered at all. Similarly, the question of balance of convenience has to be considered only for grant of interim orders. That also need not be considered in view of the fact that the writ petition itself is being disposed of on merits."
On consideration of all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the writ petition has no merit. Hence, it is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, W.M.P. No. 23384 of 1998 is dismissed.