Dismissed

T.Elangovan v. The Director

Madras HC2 Dec 2014WP/20771/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition seeking mandamus for rehabilitation and house construction under the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, the High Court dismissed the plea. The court found no evidence that the petitioners, being family members of settled former employees, were forcibly displaced, thus making the Act inapplicable.

What the court decided

AI extract

T.Elangovan Vs The Director — Caste Atrocities | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

RESERVED ON: 08.10.2014 & DELIVERED ON: 02.12.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN

¶5

Writ Petition No.20771 of 2014

¶6

T.Elangovan
2. E.Rajini
3. V.Vasantha
4. S.Vimalamanohari ...Petitioners
Vs.
1. The Director
National Commission for Scheduled Castes
Shastri Bhavan, Block No: V, II Floor
No.26, Haddows Road, Nungambakkam
Chennai - 600 006.
2. The Secretary to Government
Home Department
Fort St. George
Chennai - 600 009.
3. The District Collector,
Chennai District, 62, Rajaji Salai
Chennai - 600 001.
4. The Commissioner of Police
Chennai City
Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.
5. The Assistant Commissioner of Police
P-1 Police Station, Pulianthope
Chennai - 600 012.
6. The Managing Director
Landmark Housing Project Limited
No.27, Saravana Street
T.Nagar, Chennai - 600 017. ...Respondents

¶7

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶8

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Mandamus directing the second and third respondents to construct houses and rehabilitation at Barracks Village, Pattalam, Chennai - 600 012 to the petitioners as per the report of the first Respondent dated 09.07.2014 and as per the SC & ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989.

¶9

The petitioners have come up with the above writ petition seeking the issue of a writ of Mandamus to direct the second and third respondents to construct houses and provide rehabilitation to them at the place where they were earlier residing, as per the recommendations made by the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

¶10

Heard Mr.R.Sankarasubbu, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.R.Vijayakumar, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 2 to 5 and Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the sixth respondent.

¶11

The first petitioner is the son of a former employee of the Buckingham & Carnatic Mills. Similarly, the petitioners 2 to 4 are the wives of former employees of the same Mill.

¶12

According to the petitioners, the employer provided residential quarters in a land that was once upon a time a poramboke land, but it was allotted to the Mill for the purpose of development of an industry. The case of the petitioners is that the Mill went into a crisis, leading to a reference being made before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction. Some of the properties of the Mill were sold under orders of Court. It appears that the property in Barracks, Pattalam, Chennai 600 012, comprised in a land of an extent of 14.06 acres, was agreed to be sold by the Mill to the sixth respondent herein. Under the terms and conditions of the said agreement, the sixth respondent agreed to purchase the said property from the Mill, subject to various terms and conditions, one of which was to settle all the terminal benefits of the workers and also to provide alternative site to the workers, with a small building

¶13

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶14

constructed thereon at the cost of the sixth respondent.

¶15

There were 253 workers, to whom the company had provided rent free residential quarters in the aforesaid land of the extent of 14.06 acres. Out of these 253 workers, 129 persons agreed to take alternative accommodation, as envisaged in the agreement between the Management and the Promoter and they surrendered possession.

¶16

However, about 124 occupants refused to accept the offer. They joined together and filed a civil suit in C.S.No.396 of 2011 on the file of this Court, not only against the Management, but also against two Trade Unions. The prayer in the suit was for a declaration that the Memorandum of Understanding that the Management entered into with the Trade Unions on 28.5.2008 was illegal and invalid and for a permanent injunction restraining the Management from enforcing the Memorandum of Understanding.

¶17

After the suit, the sixth respondent in this writ petition appears to have offered to provide relief to the plaintiffs in the suit, by providing 600 sq.ft. of land in an alternative place, together with a cash compensation of Rs.50,000/- for shifting their house and a waiver of the loan payable by them to the Co-operative Society. This offer was accepted by 114 persons out of 124 plaintiffs. Those persons also surrendered possession to the sixth respondent and moved out to the new place where they were allotted.

¶18

Consequent upon the compromise, all the plaintiffs, except six persons, withdrew from the civil suit C.S.No.396 of 2011.

¶19

It appears that the trouble started thereafter, leading to the first petitioner in the writ petition lodging a complaint with the National Commission for SC/STs on 28.4.2014. Thereafter, a petition was filed on the file of this Court in Crl.O.P.No.11771 of 2014 by the first petitioner herein seeking a direction to the Police to register a complaint. On 08.5.2014, this Court allowed the petition and directed the police to investigate the complaint. On the same day, the National Commission for Scheduled Castes also sent a letter to the Chief Secretary as well as to the Director General of Police asking them to take appropriate action.

¶20

The first petitioner in the writ petition again gave another complaint on 20.5.2014 complaining that two more houses of the Dalits were partially damaged by the sixth respondent. On the said complaint, the first information was registered in Crime No.1334 of 2014. But, the said complaint appears to have been referred as false.

¶21

A third complaint was lodged by the first petitioner on 29.6.2014 to the effect that six houses were demolished on 29.6.2014. Petitions were given again to the National Commission for Scheduled

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶23

Castes leading to a spot visit by the Director of the National Commission. The Director of the National Commission appears to have impressed upon the police that a First Information Report had to be registered. Consequently, a FIR in Crime No.1854 of 2014 was registered on 08.7.2014. The National Commission also sent a detailed report to the Police Commissioner on 09.7.2014. Thereafter, the petitioners have come up with the above writ petition seeking the issue of a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to construct houses and rehabilitate them at their original places in Barracks Village, Pattalam, Chennai 600 012, as per the report of the National Commission dated 09.7.2014 and as per the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶24

The Assistant Commissioner of Police, who is the fifth respondent, has filed a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the first complaint lodged by the first petitioner was registered as Crime No.1334 of 2014, as per the direction given by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.11771 of 2014 and that after investigation, it was found to be false and a report was filed to the said effect on 26.6.2014. The petitioner has filed a protest application before the V Metropolitan Magistrate.

¶25

It is further stated in the counter affidavit that after the filing of the closure report, the first petitioner filed Crl.O.P.No.17268 of 2014 to have the investigation transferred to CBCID. But, it was dismissed by this Court. However, a second complaint was lodged and the same was registered in Crime No.1854 of 2014. On the insistence of the first petitioner, the said complaint was taken up for investigation directly by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, under the orders of the Deputy Commissioner of Police. When this complaint was pending investigation, a Three Member Team constituted by the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes inspected the place and submitted a report after enquiring a few persons. According to the fifth respondent, the Team did not enquire the other Scheduled Castes who had accepted the offer for alternative accommodation and moved out. In paragraph 24 of the counter affidavit, it is stated by the Assistant Commissioner of Police that the petitioners have been negotiating with the sixth respondent for a huge monetary settlement and that they are not actually residing in the quarters.

¶26

The sixth respondent has filed a set of documents. These documents show that the first petitioner's father alone was the employee and that his services were terminated long ago, by an order dated 04.12.1996. Since his terminal benefits remain unpaid, the sixth respondent sent a letter dated 28.6.2014 offering to pay the terminal benefits together with interest at 18%. An advance amount of Rs.50,000/- was also offered to be sent. A xerox copy of the demand draft for Rs.50,000/- was sent along with the said letter.

¶27

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶28

Interestingly, the first petitioner's father received the said letter at a place in Vyasarpadi and not at Barracks Village, where the petitioners claim to be residing.

¶29

Similarly, the second petitioner's husband, one Mr.V.Eithirajan appears to have agreed to a settlement, way back on 10.5.1998, as seen from a letter given by him. A letter dated 28.6.2014 sent to the second petitioner's husband, enclosing a xerox copy of the demand draft for Rs.50,000/- and offering to pay the entire terminal benefits with interest, had been received by him at an address at Ayanavaram and not at Barracks Village, Perambur.

¶30

The third petitioner in this writ petition is the wife of one Venugopal, who was a former employee of the Mill. He seems to have accepted the settlement way back on 05.5.1998 and a letter offering to pay the terminal benefits sent on 28.6.2014 was received by him at Vyasarpadi. The same is the case with the husband of the fourth petitioner.

¶31

Therefore, prima facie, it appears that none of these petitioners were the employees of B&C Mills. The first petitioner is the son and the petitioners 2 to 4 are the wives of the former employees of B&C Mills. There is proof to show that these employees have accepted the settlement long time ago and also moved out. But, for obvious reasons, the petitioners are carrying on the battle. If at all anybody has any right over the residential quarters allotted to workmen, it is only those workmen. Once those workmen had accepted the settlement and moved out, their family members cannot carry on an independent fight.

¶32

Relying on Section 3(1)(xv) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, read with Rule 12(5) and (6) of the Rules framed thereunder, it is contended by Mr.R.Sankarasubbu, learned counsel for the petitioners that the sixth respondent is guilty of committing an atrocity within the meaning of the Act and that therefore, the respondents are obliged to take measures of relief as provided by the Rules. The restoration of site is one of the reliefs that the petitioners are entitled to by virtue of the Entry at Serial No.15 in the Schedule under Annexure I to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the reliefs sought by the petitioners are to be granted.

¶33

But, unfortunately for the petitioners, there is no evidence to show that the petitioners were displaced forcibly from their residential houses. The residential houses that they were in occupation, were actually allotted to the workmen of the company which went into liquidation. As part of the settlement that the Management entered into with the Trade Unions, the workers were

¶34

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶35

offered an alternative site along with cash benefits. Out of 253 works, 129 accepted the offer and moved out. 124 persons filed a suit on the file of this Court. During the pendency of the suit, 114 of them settled the matter with the sixth respondent and moved out. It is only the petitioners herein who are now continuing the civil litigation.

¶36

Moreover, all the petitioners herein were not the workmen of the company. They are the family members of the workmen, who have actually moved out of their residential quarters to different places. They have not complained that they were forcibly thrown out of the residential quarters. Therefore, I do not know how the provisions of the Act and the Rules are attracted.

¶37

Relying upon the directions issued by two Division Benches of this Court, one in W.P.No.15156 of 2008 filed by J.Haribabu, General Secretary of the Centre of Protection of Civil Liberties and another in W.P.No.30531 of 2012 by an Advocate by name Sengkodi, Mr.R.Sankarasubbu, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that whenever any person is evicted by force, the authorities are obliged to take prompt action and that the State is obliged to protect weaker sections of Society against the harassment by those having the strength of money and power.

¶38

On the proposition of law indicated in the above two decisions of the Division Benches, there can be no second opinion. But, in the case on hand, there is no evidence to show that the petitioners were forcibly displaced.

¶39

Mr.R.Sankarasubbu, learned counsel also brought to my notice a petition filed by the first petitioner, along with one D.Nirmal Kumar, on the file of the National Green Tribunal challenging the activity of demolition and re-construction undertaken by the sixth respondent herein in the premises. I do not know how the same has any relevance to the case on hand. But, a perusal of the petition filed before the National Green Tribunal shows that the object of this litigation is something beyond what appears to the naked eye.

¶40

The decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in N.Mahamood Hajee v. Commissioner of Police [1979 LW (Crl.) 9], arose out of a strike organised by the workmen of a hotel and the litigation initiated by the management for the removal of the workers from the premises. It has nothing to do with the questions of law arising in this case.

¶41

Placing reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Appa Balu Ingale [1994 SCC (Cri) 1762], the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that even a contract, covenant or any private transaction tending to recognise, encourage

¶42

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶43

or effectuate untouchability in any form is void ab initio. Inviting my attention to various observations contained in the said decision, touching upon the constitutional mandate and the commitment required of the judiciary to deal with this human problem, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Management and the Promoter cannot by contract, commit offences under the Act against the oppressed classes.

¶44

But, I do not think that the said decision is of any application to the case on hand. If the Management and the Promoter had treated persons belonging to different communities differently, they could be found fault with. All the 253 workers, who had residential quarters, belonged to different communities. Except the petitioners herein, all others including even those belonging to the Scheduled Castes, had accepted the settlements and handed over possession. Therefore, this is not a case where I can hold the respondents guilty of practising untouchability or oppression of the Scheduled Castes.

¶45

Therefore, I find no merits in the writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2014 is also dismissed. Sd/Assistant Registrar(CO) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar gr/kpl To 1. The Director National Commission for Scheduled Castes Shastri Bhavan, Block No: V, II Floor No.26, Haddows Road, Nungambakkam Chennai - 600 006. 2. The Secretary to Government Home Department Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

¶46

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶47

The District Collector, Chennai District, 62, Rajaji Salai Chennai - 600 001. 4. The Commissioner of Police Chennai City Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.

¶48

The Assistant Commissioner of Police
P-1 Police Station, Pulianthope
Chennai - 600 012.
1 CC to M/s. R. Sankara Subbu, Advocate SR.No. 58122
1 CC to M/s. S.Ramesh, Advocate SR.No. 58123
W.P.No.20771 of 2014
RSK (CO)
PSI (08.12.2014)

¶49

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

T.Elangovan v. The Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

T.Elangovan v. The Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Manickam, Vs State of Tamilnadu

Irudaya Rani Vs the Area Officer

G.Arunprasad, Vs the Secretary

M.Aamira Fathima, Vs The Annamalai University

K.Rajaram Vs The Collector

S.Gnanavel Vs The Taluk Supply Officer