Dismissed

Traffic Dr.K.R.Ramaswamy v. State rep by The Chief

Madras HC5 Feb 2018WP/2162/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition under Article 226 sought a mandamus directing officials to ban unauthorized political banners. The High Court found the petition vague, lacking material particulars and specific legal provisions supporting criminal action. The Court dismissed the petition without costs, warning against frivolous PILs.

What did the court decide?

None granted; petition dismissed without costs.

Traffic Dr.K.R.Ramaswamy Vs State rep by The… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 05.02.2018 CORAM The HON'BLE MS.INDIRA BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE AND The HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE W.P.No.2162 of 2018

¶2

Traffic Dr.K.R.Ramaswamy

¶3

.. Petitioner

¶4

vs.

¶5

State, represented by

¶6

1.The Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai – 600 009.

¶7

2.The Secretary, Municipal Administration, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶8

3.The District Collector – Chennai, 62, Singaravelar Maaligai, Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 600 001.

¶9

4.The Commissioner of Chennai Corporation, Ripon Buildings, No.1131, EVR Periyar Salai, Park Town, Chennai- 600 003.

¶10

5.The Commissioner of Police – Chennai, No.132, EVK Sampath Road, Vepery, Chennai – 600 007. .. Respondents

¶11

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation/complaint dated 29.1.2018 to ban if not able to enforce the Amendment sent by the petitioner and take necessary action against the officials mentioned in the petitioner's representation, who were involved in illegal activities and negligence to discharge their duty, and helped the unauthorized

¶12

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

¶13

banner erectors to escape from the punishment from the offence committed by them to the letter and spirit under Section 326 1, City Municipal Act.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Arvind

¶15

For Respondents

¶16

: Mr.T.N.Rajagopalan Government Pleader (i/c) for respondent Nos.1 to 3 & 5

¶17

Mr.V.C.Selvasekaran for respondent No.4

¶18

ORDER

¶19

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶20

This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 29.1.2018 of the petitioner and to take action against the officials mentioned in the petitioner's representation, who were allegedly involved in “illegal activities and negligence to discharge their duty”.

¶21

From the representation annexed to the typed set of papers, it appears that the President of India, the Governor of Tamil Nadu, the Chief Justice of India (referred to as Chief Judge), the Chief Justice of this High Court (referred to as Chief Judge), the Chief Secretary and the Home Secretary have been requested to take serious action against the officials, who have allowed erection of banners along the road from the DGP office in Rajaji Salai to Anna Circle on Mount Road. We are informed that all the banners have been removed and no banners are there.

¶22

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that criminal action should be taken. The writ petition is, however, devoid of any material particulars. In a writ petition, the onus is on the petitioner to establish his entitlement to the reliefs claimed. Learned counsel has not referred to any provision under which criminal action can be taken for setting up of posters containing pictures of politicians. There are also no details at all with regard to the alleged violation of rules in putting up of banners. The persons allegedly guilty of dereliction of duty or connivance have not been named. Such vague writ petitions cannot be entertained. The Court has serious matters to deal with. Such

¶23

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

¶24

vague and frivolous writ petitions which consume the Court's time should be discouraged with exemplary costs. It is warned that in future exemplary costs shall be imposed for frivolous so called public interest litigations, which do not concern the public at large.

¶25

The writ petition is dismissed, but without costs.

Assistant Registrar

Dt.15.2.18

//True Copy//

Sub Assistant Registrar
To:
1.The Chief Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Secretary,
Municipal Administration,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
3.The District Collector – Chennai,
62, Singaravelar Maaligai,
Rajaji Salai,
Chennai – 600 001.
4.The Commissioner of Chennai Corporation,
Ripon Buildings,
No.1131, EVR Periyar Salai,
Park Town, Chennai- 600 003.
5.The Commissioner of Police – Chennai,
No.132, EVK Sampath Road,
Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.
+1 cc to Govt.Pleader,sr.8477.
Krd 17/2

¶30

W.P.No.2162 of 2018

¶31

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

Traffic Dr.K.R.Ramaswamy v. State rep by The Chief

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Traffic Dr.K.R.Ramaswamy v. State rep by The Chief

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tamilnadu Public Related Vs Chennai Metropolitan Water

D.Vijaya Annamalai Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

R.Senthil Murugan, Vs The Chief Secretary

V.Sundaramurthy, Vs The Collector

N.P.Sreedharan, Vs The Commissioner

G.V. Vairam Santhosh, Advocate Vs The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu