Dismissed

K.K.Ramesh, v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC3 Jul 2017WP(MD)/10136/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition filed pro bono publico, petitioner sought mandatory direction to State authorities to act against women protesters damaging TASMAC shops. High Court rejected the petition, finding no public interest in interfering with a democratic protest and dismissing the claim that revenue loss justified inaction.

What did the court decide?

Writ of Mandamus denied. Petition dismissed. No costs awarded.

K.K.Ramesh, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 03.07.2017 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD)No.10136 of 2017

¶3

K.K.Ramesh : Petitioner

¶4

Vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

¶5

2.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Home Secretary, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

¶6

3.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited, CMDA Tower -II, IV Floor, Gandhi Irwin Bridge Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.

¶7

4.The Director General of Police, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Chennai. : Respondents

¶8

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to take stringent action against unruly women protestors (MOB) who are vandalizing the TASMAC Liquor Shops and other Government properties. Then, only public money and Government properties will be saved by considering the petitioner's representation dated 03.05.2017.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.K.K.Ramesh, Party-in-person For Respondents : Mr.B.Pugalendhi, Additional Advocate General, Assisted by Mr.M.Muniyasamy ******

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

¶12

[Order of the Court was made by K.K.SASIDHARAN, J.]

¶13

This Writ Petition filed in pro bono publico seeks a Writ of Mandamus in the nature of a direction to the State of Tamil Nadu https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ represented by its Chief Secretary and Secretary to Government (Home) and the Director General of Police, Chennai, to take stringent action against unruly women protestors who are vandalising

¶14

¶15

the TASMAC liquor shops and other Government properties in connection with the agitation opposing re-location of liquor outlets in the State.

¶16

BRIEF FACTS:

¶17

The petitioner is stated to be a public spirited person residing at Madurai. It is the case of the petitioner that on account of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu Vs. K.Balu and Another (Judgment dated 31 March, 2017 in Civil Appeal Nos.12164 to 12166 of 2016), the TASMAC has been taking steps to re-locate the liquor outlets. According to the petitioner, certain anti-social elements financed by Foreign Agencies and some of the opposition political parties have been inducing the illiterate people, especially women, to cause damage and arson to vandalise TASMAC Liquor Shops all over Tamil Nadu. The petitioner contended that the revenue from sale of liquor is a major source of income to the State of Tamil Nadu. The State was receiving a revenue close to Rs.30,000/- Crores from liquor business. The petitioner, in his affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, has given the details of certain incidents involving the village women pelting stones against liquor shops and destroying the stock in trade. The petitioner further contended that the police have been asking the women in a polite manner to stop such protests. Even then, the women vandalized the TASMAC shops at various places demanding its re-location. The petitioner accused the Tamil Nadu police, as, according to him, the police department failed to take stringent action against the protestors. It is the further case of the petitioner that the Tamil Nadu Government is a " Benami Government " and due to the fear of dismissal, the Government is afraid to take stern action against the protestors. The petitioner, therefore, submitted a comprehensive representation dated 03.05.2017 requesting the Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu and the Director General of Police to take immediate action against the protestors and more particularly, against the women protestors, who are vandalising the TASMAC liquor shops. Since immediate follow-up action was not taken by the Government of Tamil Nadu and more particularly, the Director General of Police, the petitioner rushed to this Court with the Writ Petition.

¶18

SUBMISSIONS :

¶19

3.The petitioner, who appeared as party-in-person, contended that there was no basis or justifiable reasons for such protests by women. According to the petitioner, revenue from liquor is the major source of revenue to the State. The State has to undertake welfare measures and for the said purpose, it requires considerable money. The petitioner, further, contended that in spite of specific incidents relating to arson and violence by the women protestors and the loss sustained by the TASMAC, action was not taken by any of the authorities including TASMAC against the protestors.

¶20

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4.The learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the State of Tamil Nadu witnessed

¶21

¶22

large scale protest by women against re-location of liquor shops. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court directing removal of liquor shops located on the Highways, the State has no other alternative than to re-locate the existing shops. The learned Additional Advocate General contended that necessary action was taken by the police to prevent the law and order problems consequent to the re-location of TASMAC Liquor outlets across the State.

¶23

DISCUSSION:

¶24

5.The petitioner filed this Writ Petition selectively against women protestors on the ground that the women are backed by antisocial elements and Foreign Agencies, besides some of the opposition political parties to cause damage and arson to vandalise the TASMAC Liquor Shops in the State of Tamil Nadu. The affidavit of the petitioner is not clear as to how he arrived at a conclusion that the womenfolk are taking up the issue at the instance of others and that there is no bona fide in resorting to agitation against the relocation of liquor outlets. The petitioner has taken few individual cases to contend that the women protestors resorted to violent methods to cause damage to the public property.

¶25

6.The petitioner appears to have not seen the News reports appeared in leading Newspapers regarding the assault of women protestor without any provocation by a Senior Officer in the level of a Deputy Superintendent of Police. The petitioner is more concerned about the revenue loss caused on account of the closure of liquor outlets. According to the petitioner, there is a revenue loss of about Rs.30,000/- Crores on account of the closure of the liquor outlets in Tamil Nadu. The petitioner justified his action in moving the Court to take action against the women protestors on the ground that the Government requires money for undertaking welfare measures. There is no dispute that the State is given a constitutional mandate to initiate measures for the welfare of the citizen. The petitioner appears to be under the impression that revenue generated from the sale of liquor alone is the only source of revenue to the Government. The petitioner conveniently omitted to take note of the fact that it was only by making the people drunkard that income is generated. By this act of opening more shops and counters even near the Educational Institutions and other public places, the Government is earning considerable revenue, at the cost of the health of its people. This vital aspect appears to have been ignored by the petitioner in his eagerness to generate revenue to TASMAC and thereby to the State.

¶26

7.The TASMAC is a public sector undertaking. In case there are such serious acts of destruction of public property, it is for the TASMAC to take up the matter with the concerned authorities. It is not for the Court to advise the TASMAC in its ordinary course of business.

¶27

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

¶28

8.There is absolutely no public interest involved in this

¶29

¶30

Writ Petition. The petitioner is pretending ignorance about the nuisance caused to the people of Tamil Nadu in general and difficulties suffered by the people living in Villages on account of locating liquor shops near the Educational Institutions, hospitals and places of public worship.

¶31

The petitioner contended that the present State Government of Tamil Nadu is a "Benami Government" and as such, the Government is not taking any concrete action against the protestors fearing dismissal of the very Government. The Court is not concerned about the inner politics. There is a Government in the State of Tamil Nadu. The Government is the best Judge to take a conscious decision as to whether the TASMAC was correct in locating liquor shops in Villages and in the event of protest by the people, whether action should be taken against them. The Court has got only a limited role to play in a matter like this. It is not within the province of the Court to direct a Public Sector Undertaking to take immediate action against the women protestors. It is not as if the women protestors are not having any other useful work than initiating agitation against location of liquor shops. It was only when they realize that their peaceful life was in danger, the villagers started agitation against locating the liquor shops.

¶32

The women protestors across the State have been resorting to "DHARNA" against re-location of Liquor Shops in residential localities and places of public importance. It is a form of protest which has been accepted historically. There is a constitutional mandate and an implied responsibility upon the State Government to function in larger public interest. When this element of public interest is ignored by those who are in power, the citizen is compelled to adopt measures to enforce his fundamental rights. It is true that there is no right to adopt violent methods to redress the grievances. The preservation of law and order is the responsibility of the State. It is for the State Government to take appropriate action to protect its property.

¶33

The Supreme Court in Ramlila Maidan Incident, In re, 2012 (5)C SCC 1, indicated that Dharnas and agitations are the basic features of a democratic system. The Supreme Court said:

¶34

"245. Freedom of speech, right to assemble

¶35

and demonstrate by holding dharnas and peaceful agitations are the basic features of a democratic system. The people of a democratic country like ours have a right to raise their voice against the decisions and actions of the Government or even to express their resentment over the actions of the Government on any subject of social or national importance. The Government has to respect and, in fact, encourage exercise of such rights. It is the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ abundant duty of the State to aid the exercise of the right to freedom of speech as understood in its comprehensive sense and not to throttle or

¶36

¶37

frustrate exercise of such rights by exercising its executive or legislative powers and passing orders or taking action in that direction in the name of reasonable restrictions. The preventive steps should be founded on actual and prominent threat endangering public order and tranquility, as it may disturb the social order. This delegated power vested in the State has to be exercised with great caution and free from arbitrariness. It must serve the ends of the Constitutional rights rather than to subvert them."

¶38

For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the view that the petitioner has not made out a case for issuing a Writ of Mandamus in exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶39

In the upshot, we dismiss the Writ Petition. No costs.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

Assistant Registrar(Writ) /True Copy/

¶42

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶43

To:

¶44

1.The Chief Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

¶45

2.The Home Secretary, The State of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

¶46

3.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited, CMDA Tower -II, IV Floor, Gandhi Irwin Bridge Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.

¶47

4.The Director General of Police, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Chennai.

¶48

+1cc to THE SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER in SR. No.63304 +1cc to Mr.K.K.RAMESH Advocate in SR. No.63446 SML/MR

¶49

JS/GT/SAR.2/7.7.2017/5P-7C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶50

Order made in W.P.(MD)No.10136 of 2017 Dated: 03.07.2017

K.K.Ramesh, v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.K.Ramesh, v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.T. Abraham Vs the Presiding Officer

Tvl.Annai Velankanni Traders Vs the Commissioner of Commercial

Tvl.Annai Velankanni Traders Vs the Commissioner of Commercial