Consumer Action Group vs The Commissioner, Corporation of Madras and The Dy. Commissioner of Police (Traffic)

N.K. Jain, C.J.—One Sriram Panchu, alleged to be a Trustee of Consumer Action Group, Chennai, has filed this P.I.L. writ petition with

the allegation that the traders, cinema persons and various other political associations are obstructing the public roads of Madras by putting up

arches. It is also alleged that the arches are made of bamboo sticks or casuarina poles and they hinder the traffic movement and movement of

pedestrians. Due to these arches and cut outs, the width of the road is shortened. They force the pedestrians to move to the roads causing danger

to the citizens. During nights, in the absence of any warning signs, they become veritable death traps to the passers-by. Moreover, the roads are

dug often for the construction of such arches and they are left as it is after a week or ten days. It is alleged that the cut outs are often to a height of

40'' or 60'' and made of flimsy materials. It is further stated that such a practice is in ''violation of Section 220 of the Madras City Municipal

Corporation Act (hereinafter referred to as ''Act'') which is to the effect that no one shall obstruct or project or make any encroachment over any

public street as defined in Section 3 (20) of the Act, which includes road passage and footway. The Petitioner prayed for a Writ of Mandamus

directing the Respondents not to permit the construction or erection of arches and cutouts on the public roads and pavements of Madras City.

While issuing notice on 25.4.1991, interim injunction was granted restraining the Respondents from permitting or allowing the construction and

erection of arches across the roads and the same was made absolute by order dated 23.4.1993.

The first Respondent has not filed any counter. The second Respondent has filed a counter stating that the police is concerned only with the

regulation of traffic, and it is only the Corporation of Chennai who are the licensing authorities for the erection of cut outs and arches in the streets.

He is not aware of the representations.

We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records and pursued Sections 220 and 222 of the Act, Section 4-A of the

Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1959, (hereinafter referred to as ''the Open Places Act'') and Section 283 of the

Indian Penal Code. Nothing has been placed on record that the Petitioner is duly authorised as per the object of the Consumer Action Group and

also following other requirements to be followed by the Group as per law. But since the issue involved is of great public importance, without going

into the maintainability of the authority to file this petition, we proceed.

On considering the settled principles of law that this Court in an appropriate case, on matters shocking the conscience of the Court, can issue

directions in Public Interest Litigations. But at the same time, P.I.L. cannot be issued for one''s personal gain or for publicity. Section 220 of the

Act prohibits building any wall or erecting any fence or obstructing or projecting or making any encroachment in or over any street or any public

place, the control of which is vested with the Corporation. A perusal of this Section reveals that the Corporation is duty bound to prevent

obstruction or projection in any public street or way. Section 4-A of the Open Places Act talks of putting up or fixing any thutty board upon or

over any land, building wall or structure on special occasions and the obtaining of permission from the Commissioner of Police. There is also

reference in this Section to the licences granted by the Local Authority and the exemption in favour of such licences. As per Section 283 of the

Indian Penal Code whoever, by doing any act, or by omitting to take order with any property causes danger, obstruction or injury to any person in

any public way or public line of navigation, shall be punished with fine, which may extend to two hundred rupees.

As the facts culled out, there is a duty upon the Corporation to see that arches are erected with due permission. The Respondents also owe a

duty to see that they are not erected unless prior permission is obtained. This Court has already issued a direction by order dated 20.4.1993

stating that the arches can be erected only on the basis of permission. The learned Judge had also directed that the Respondents should prevent

erection of such cut outs or fixtures, when it was brought to their notice and to take action as per law. It was also mentioned that prevention is

better than cure. However, each case depends upon on the facts and circumstances of its own case. Even if there is no provision for granting

permission, public convenience and traffic hazard and obstruction including vehicular traffic are to be taken into consideration, and the authorities

shall see and satisfy whether erection of such cut outs or fixtures causes hindrance to public and take appropriate action as per various provisions

of law.

Nothing has been placed on record that pending writ petition, any complaint for violation has been made to the concerned authority. In view of

this, it is suffice to direct the Corporation of Madras, in terms of the order dated 23.4.1993, to see that Section 4-A of the Open Places Act, is not

violated. They may also issue a general notice not to erect any arches/cut outs/fixtures without permission and if there is any, they can remove it.

Otherwise, if any obstruction or projection by arches/cut outs/ fixtures is found, without obtaining permission, the authorities are free to remove

them at the cost of the person/party who have erected them, in accordance with law. A copy of this order be sent to the Respondents for

information and action. As observed, this writ petition is disposed of accordingly.