In this PIL, the petitioner sought a direction to allot a common place in Coimbatore for selling fire crackers on Diwali, citing safety concerns. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that designated area location is a policy decision for the Government and the petitioner failed to provide material justification for such a directive.
No order as to cost.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24.10.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
W.P.No.27959 of 2018
K.Pugalenthi .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Chief Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Joint Chief Controller of Explosives,
No.140, Lakshmipathy Road,
Egmore, Chennai - 600 008
3.The Director,
Tamil Nadu Fire & Rescue Services,
Egmore, Chennai - 600 008
4.The Commissioner,
Coimbatore Corporation,
Coimbatore
5.The Commissioner of Police,
Coimbatore City, Coimbatore. .. Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider petitioner's representation dated 04.10.2018 and allot a common place in Coimbatore City to sell the fire crackers in the eve of Diwali after following the Rules and Regulations of Explosive Act, within the time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.M.Vishnuvarthanan
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.)
Instant public interest litigation has been filed by the petitioner for a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to consider his representation dated 04.10.2018 and allot a common
place in Coimbatore city, to sell fire crackers on the eve of Diwali, after following the rules and regulations of Indian Explosives Act.
RPAD From K.Pugalenthi S/o.Krishnaraj 212 Thomas Street Floor-1 Coimbatore 641 001 To 1.The Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Joint Chief Controller of Explosives, No.140, Lakshmipathy Road, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008 3.The Director, Tamil Nadu Fire & Rescue Services, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008 4.The Commissioner, Coimbatore Corporation, Coimbatore 5.The Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore City, Coimbatore. Respected Sir, Sub : Allotting common place for selling fire
crackers eve of Diwali festival in Coimbatore city - Request an public interest.
I am a resident of Coimbatore city. I had born and brought up at Coimbatore city. In the reason past several accident took place in Coimbatore city, on the explosion of fire crackers, illegally dump at the time of Diwali in the shops, located at residential area.
There are number of incidence/accident occurred during Diwali and thereby, several person life where take into task. In fact, massive explosion happened, continuous years that is on 2016 and 2017 as well. All because of pattern violation of rules framed under Explosives Act.
It is understood that this Hon'ble Madras High Court in the year 2013, passed order in W.P. No.26447 of 2013 dated 07.10.2013, issued direction and guidelines in respect of fire crackers shops in common place, as well as strict directions to be follow by corporations in allotting common places/grounds in the city, which will be easier to common public to approach.
In Coimbatore city there are more than three places of Government land, much suitable for allotting fire crackers shops. More particularly VOC Park (15 Acres) and R.S.Puram (10 Acres). It is needless to state that Coimbatore city is one of the major city in Tamil Nadu having more population any other cities. It is also industrial
hub too. No prejudice will cause to fire crackers business people or to the related persons, in allotting common places for fire crackers shops in anyone of the above Government places and to follow the similar guidelines of the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court.
It is therefore humbly prayed that the authorities may issue appropriate direction implementing similar guidelines adopted by Chennai Metro in respect of allotting common places for fire crackers shops in anyone of the above Government places, before the Diwali era and thus render justice.
Date : 04.10.2018 Place: Coimbatore
Yours sincerely
(K.PUGALENDHI)
(i) In Narmada Bachao Andolan vs. Union of India and others reported in (2000) 10 SCC 664, the Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraph Nos.232 to 234, held as follows:
"232. While protecting the rights of the people from being violated in any manner utmost care has to be taken that the Court does not transgress its jurisdiction. There is in our Constitutional frame-work a fairly clear demarcation of powers. The Court has come down heavily whenever the executive has sought to impinge upon the Courts jurisdiction.
Government after due care and consideration. In a democracy welfare of the people at large, and not merely of a small section of the society, has to be the concern of a responsible Government. If a considered policy decision has been taken, which is not in conflict with any law or is not mala fide, it will not be in Public Interest to require the Court to go into and investigate those areas which are the function of the executive. For any project which is approved after due deliberation the Court should refrain from being asked to review the decision just because a petitioner in filing a PIL alleges that such a decision should not have been taken because an opposite view against the undertaking of the project, which view may have been considered by the Government, is possible. When two or more options or views are possible and after considering them the Government takes a policy decision it is then not the function of the Court to go into the matter afresh and, in a way, sit in appeal over such a policy decision."
(ii) The above said observations have been quoted with approval in the judgment of BALCO Employees Union (Regd.) vs. Union of India and others reported in (2002) 2 SCC 333.
(iii) In Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club and Another vs. Chander Hass and Another reported in 2008 (1) SCC 683, the Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraph 29, has observed as under:
"29. Honble Justice A.S. Anand, former Chief Justice of India has recently observed : Courts have to function within the established parameters and constitutional bounds. Decisions should have a jurisprudential base with clearly discernible principles. Courts have to be careful to see that they do not overstep their limits because to them is assigned the sacred duty of guarding the Constitution. Policy matters, fiscal, educational or otherwise, are thus best left to the judgment of the executive. The danger of the judiciary creating a multiplicity of rights without the possibility of adequate enforcement will, in the ultimate analysis, be counter productive and undermine the credibility of the institution. Courts cannot create rights where none exists nor can they go on making orders which are incapable of enforcement or violative of other laws or settled legal principles. With a view to see that judicial activism does not become judicial
adventurism, the courts must act with caution and proper restraint. They must remember that judicial activism is not an unguided missile failure to bear this in mind would lead to chaos. Public adulation must not sway the judges and personal aggrandizement must be eschewed. It is imperative to preserve the sanctity and credibility of judicial process. It needs to be remembered that courts cannot run the government. The judiciary should act only as an alarm bell; it should ensure that the executive has become alive to perform its duties."
(iv) Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Common Cause (A Regd. Society) vs. Union of India and others reported in (2008) 5 SCC 511, at paragraph Nos.20 to 22, has observed as under:
"Courts have to function within the established parameters and constitutional bounds.
Decisions should have a jurisprudential base with clearly discernible principles. Courts have to be careful to see that they do not overstep their limits because to them is assigned the sacred duty of guarding the Constitution. Policy matters, fiscal, educational or otherwise, are thus best left to the judgment of the executive. The danger of the judiciary creating a multiplicity of rights without the possibility of adequate enforcement will, in the ultimate analysis, be counter productive and undermine the credibility of the institution. Courts cannot "create rights" where none exists nor can they go on making orders which are incapable of enforcement or violative of other laws or settled legal principles. With a view to see that judicial activism does not become "judicial adventurism", the courts must act with caution and proper restraint. They must remember that judicial activism is not an unguided missile failure to bear this in mind would lead to chaos. Public adulation must not sway the judges and personal aggrandizement must be eschewed. It is imperative to preserve the sanctity and credibility of judicial process. It needs to be remembered that courts cannot run the government. The judiciary should act only as an alarm bell; it should ensure that the executive has become alive to perform its duties".
6. The petitioner has not given any reason and has not supplied any material as to why in Coimbatore there has to be a designated area for selling fire crackers. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to cost.
Sd/Deputy Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar asr To
1.The Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Joint Chief Controller of Explosives,
No.140, Lakshmipathy Road,
Egmore, Chennai - 600 008
3.The Director,
Tamil Nadu Fire & Rescue Services,
Egmore, Chennai - 600 008
4.The Commissioner,
Coimbatore Corporation,
Coimbatore
5.The Commissioner of Police,
Coimbatore City,
Coimbatore.
+1cc to Mr.P.M.Vishnuvarthanan, Advocate, S.R.No. 72548
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No. 72760
W.P.No.27959 of 2018
GN(17/12/2018)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can direct the Government to allot a common place in Coimbatore for selling fire crackers.
Whether the petitioner has provided sufficient material to justify a designated area for fire cracker sales in Coimbatore.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Narmada Bachao Andolan vs. Union of IndiaReferred¶32
Narmada Bachao Andolan vs. Union of India and others reported in (2000) 10 SCC 664 · Who else cites this
BALCO Employees Union (Regd.) vs. Union of IndiaReferred¶38
BALCO Employees Union (Regd.) vs. Union of India and others reported in (2002) 2 SCC 333 · Who else cites this
Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club and Another vs. Chander Hass and AnotherReferred¶39
Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club and Another vs. Chander Hass and Another reported in 2008 (1) SCC 683 · Who else cites this
Common Cause (A Regd. Society) vs. Union of IndiaReferred¶43
Common Cause (A Regd. Society) vs. Union of India and others reported in (2008) 5 SCC 511 · Who else cites this
K. Pugalenthi
Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu
S. Manikumar
Subramonium Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
