Cont.P.No.671 of 2014:
K.R.Ramaswamy alias Traffic Ramaswamy .. Petitioner
-vs-
1.Mrs.Sundaravalli, I.A.S., Collector, Chennai District, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-600 001.
2.Mr.K.George, I.A.S., Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai City, Vepery, Chennai-600 007.
3.Mr.Vikram Kapoor, I.A.S., Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Rippon Buildings, Chennai-600 003.
4.Mr.K.Ramachandran, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Royapettah Range, Chennai-600 014.
5.Mr.S.Siva Baskar, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Teynampet Range, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 018.
6.Mr.D.K.Mohan, Assistant Commissioner, Chennai Corporation Zone-V, Royapuram, Old Washermenpet, Chennai-600 021.
7.Mr.T.Senthilkumar, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Flower Bazaar, No.18, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-600 001.
8.Mr.Radhakrishnan, Inspector of Police, B2 Esplanade Police Station, Chennai-600 104.
(Respondents 6 to 8 impleaded as per order of this Court dated 07.04.2015 in Sub.A.No.139/2015 in Cont.P.No.671/14). .. Respondents W.P.No.7304 of 2006 filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to prevent encroachments by anybody by any means including religious symbols and political graffiti, advertisements by private parties on the natural resources like mountains, hills, hillocks, roubles, avenue trees and on the centre median of the National and State Highways.
Cont.P.No.671 of 2014 filed under
Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, to punish the respondents for their wilful disobedience of the order dated 09.01.2014 in W.P.No.30233 of 2011 passed by this Court.
W.P.No.7304 of 2006:
For Petitioner : Mr.Elephant G.Rajendran For Respondents : Mr.C.Manishankar, Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.M.K.Subramanian, Govt.Pleader for R1, R8, R9 and R10 Mr.B.Babu Manohar, SCGPC, Government of India for R2 Mr.G.Rajagopal, Addl.Solicitor General of India for R3 Mr.B.Nedunchezhiyan for R4 Mrs.Rita Chandrasekar for R5 Mr.S.Senthil for R6 Mr.V.T.Balaji for R15 No representation for R7 to R14, R16 and R17 Cont.P.No.671 of 2014:
For Petitioner : Mr.K.R.Ramasamy alias Traffic Ramaswamy (Party-in-Person) For Respondents : Mr.C.Manishankar, Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr.M.K.Subramanian, Government Pleader COMMON ORDER (Order of the Court was made by THE HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) The writ petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to prevent encroachments by anybody by any means including religious symbols and political graffiti, advertisements by private parties on the natural resources like mountains, hills, hillocks, roubles, avenue trees and on the centre median of the National and State Highways.
2.The petitioner states that when he was travelling from Madurai High Court to Chennai, via Trichy and Chengalpattu, he witnessed big advertisements, election graffiti and religious slogans, painted on the road side mountains, hills, rocks and roubles. He further states that as per the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, that natural resources like mountains, hills etc. shall not be disturbed by any means by painting or advertisements, the State and Central Governments should protect trees, mountains, hills and rocks from any encroachments made by way of painting, advertisement, flag fixing, posters etc. Stating so, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with the prayer as already stated supra.
3.On 07.10.2015, when this writ petition was taken up, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India has referred to the judgment in CDJ 2006 MHC 2757 (K.Kanagaraj vs. District Collector, Chennai and others), which has examined the issue in question and suggested that if Rule-3 of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Licensing of Hoardings and Levy and Collection of Advertisement Tax Rules, 2003, is strictly adhered to, large part of the difficulty can be sorted out. He also submitted at that time, that this would have to be read with Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Licensing of Hoarding and Levy and Collection of Advertisement Tax Rules, 1998. This Court directed the respondent authorities to take note of and ensure compliance of that judgment. Thereafter, the matter has been listed repeatedly for compliance.
4.In this writ petition, several orders have been passed by this Court from time to time. A committee has also been constituted as per the direction of this Court. As per the orders issued by this Court, the authorities have tried to identify the parties who have disfigured the public walls and it appears that certain photographs have been produced before the committee, but there is no identification as to where the photographs were taken.
5.It is true that apart from the duty of maintaining law and order in the State, it is also very much required for the Government to maintain the system as a whole. Thus, suitable action has to be taken against the persons who disfigures the walls and other natural resources like mountains, hillocks etc. But the manner in which the petitioner making allegations against the political parties appears to be totally uncalled for. The petitioner must have self-restraint with regard to his feelings, while exercising freedom of speech and expression. Making this sort of allegations, would rather waste the time of this Court and would abuse the process of law. The Government also has got a better business, performing its duties as the executive machinery of the State. Wherever there is violation of law, it is only the Court to interfere or direct to keep things in an orderly manner. Thus, orders are passed from time to time. It cannot be simply said that the Government has not taken any action as regards the complaints made by the petitioner with regard to disfigurement.
6.The learned Additional Advocate General states that the Government is facing certain difficulty in identifying the photographs produced by the petitioner. He states that there is no proper identity with regard to the photographs or disclosure of the details as to whether how the disfigurement occurred.
7.In furtherance of the directions issued by this Court from time to time, steps would have been taken, but the same cannot be attended to over-night. Due to lack of official staff and other machinery, it may not be possible for the State to take steps immediately, and it will take some reasonable time to carry out the exercise. Hence, whatever complained by the petitioner with regard to disfigurement may be furnished to the committee constituted in that regard, which shall take note of the same in an appropriate manner and do the needful.
8.With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.
9.Cont.P.No.671 of 2014 has been filed to punish the respondents for the wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.30233 of 2011. The subject matter involved in W.P.No.30233 of 2011 relates to the illegal erection of digital banners in the city of Chennai, which issue is similar to the one raised in W.P.No.1304 of 2006. In the order made in W.P.No.30233 of 2011, this Court, on 09.01.2014, had given certain directions to the authorities. Stating that the said directions were not complied with by the authorities, the contempt petition has been filed.
10.In view of the order now passed by us in W.P.No.7304 of 2006, directing the petitioner therein to approach the Committee constituted in that regard for taking care of the grievances, the contempt petition is closed to enable the authorities to take appropriate steps.