AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Bakthavatasalm, J.—The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to remove the police personnel
illegally occupying the Nattukottai Nagarathar Oya Madam, Tiruvadal Street, Tiruvannamalai, Sambuvaroyar District and declare their occupation
as illegal, unconstitutional and without any sanction of law.
The petitioner claiming to the Managing Trustee of Nattukottai Nagarathar Oya Madam, Tiruvannamalai has come up to this Court with the
complaint that the first respondent came to the Madam and directed him to remove the articles belonging to the Madam to enable him to allot the
premises to be used as Police Headquarters for the bifurcated North Arcot District, renamed as Sambuvaroyar district. The allegation made is that
he refused to give the permission and the Special Officer was accompanied by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai. It is stated in
the affidavit that the petitioner gave lawyer''s notice on the same day setting forth his objections. It is stated that the presiding deity of
Tiruvannamalai, namely, Sri. Arunachalcswarar, is the ""Kula Deviam"" of the Nagarathar community and their people numbering about two lakhs,
spread over 92 villages and towns, often visit the temple and would avail the facilities provided for in the Madam for boarding and lodging. It is
also stated that during ""Karthi-gai Deepam"", a popular festival, the Madam would be fully occupied and food will be provided to occupants free of
cost. It is also stated that the upstairs portion is already let out to Electricity Department and the available are is the Hall and the kitchen attached
thereto in which poojas are conducted during festival days. In view of this, the petitioner informed the first respondent expressing the impossibility
of allowing the Madam to be used as Police Headquarters. To this notice, no reply was given by the first respondent. According to the petitioner,
on 5-10-1989, a battalion of 400 policemen entered into the Madam forcibly and directed him to remove all the articles belonging to the Madam
and the petitioner was informed that Oya Madam will henceforth be used as Police Headquarters. It is alleged that the petitioner protested to the
illegal entry of the policemen in the Madam, but his opposition was dealt with by hauling the petitioner out of the Madam. It is stated that the Police
Force, which is supposed to maintain law and order, cannot perpetrate illegality and disorder to public peace and tranquillity and the action of the
policemen entering the Madam and orally informing the trustee that it would be used as Police Headquarters, would make any prudent individual
doubt the democratic set up in our country. It is also stated that no civilised jurisprudence authorises forcible dispossession by responsible police
officers and further self-serving henceforth be used as Police Headquarters. It is stated that the second respondent has allowed his men to
transgress into the rights of the petitioner thereby violating the constitutional and statutory obligations cast upon the State to protect. After a
telegraphic notice to the respondents on 14-10-1989, the petitioner has come to this Court claiming that his rights under Art. 26 of the Constitution
of India is being infringed and if the Police converts the Madam into a Police Headquarters, it will result in crippling the trustee of the obligation cast
on him to render service. It is also stated that since the respondents have violated Arts. 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India, they should be
made liable for their illegal conduct by payment of damages. With this prayer, the petitioner has come up to this Court.
Notice of motion has been ordered on 31-10-1989. Learned Additional Government Pleader appears for the respondents and represents that
the writ petition has become infructuous since the Police Department has already handed over Oya Madam to the petitioner on the Second of
November, 1989 and on that ground itself, nothing survives in this writ petition.
Learned Additional Government Pleader also states on instructions from the second respondent, Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai, that
it is correct to say that the Special Officer was accompanied by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tiruvannamalai, and the Deputy Collector,
Tiruvannamalai, and other officials. Though it is admitted that a battalion of 400 policemen entered into the Madam 5-10-1989, the allegation that
they entered forcibly is denied. According to the Learned Additional Government Pleader, it is not correct to say that the petitioner was hauled out
from the Madam. Learned Additional Government Pleader states that in the first week of July, 1989, certain buildings were inspected by the
officials which were offered for rent, including the Oya Madam, before the formation of Sambuvaroyar District. The Additional Government
Pleader also states that the petitioner agreed before the officials that the Government can occupy the building for any of its departments, provided a
higher rent is fixed to the Madam for which the officials replied that the rent will be reasonably fixed by the Public Works Department. It is stated
by the Additional Government Pleader that the petitioner co-operated with the officials whenever they inspected the premises, Learned Additional
Government Pleader states, on instructions from the Superintendent of Police, that the Superintendent of Police was informed that the A.R. Police
can occupy the Oya Madam building and the Police Department contacted one Kannan, Tahsildar, Tiruvannamalai, and he expressed that he
would obtain all the necessary documents from the owners, that is the petitioner, and hand over the same to the police department. On instructions,
Learned Additional Government Pleader, submits that as per the modalities in the pre-bifurcation period, no guidelines were offered to the Police
Department and it was presumed that the said tahsildar who was put in charge of the same had already done the needful and that is why the Police
Department entered the premises on 5-10-1989. The defence put forward by the Police Department is that they presumed that the Revenue
Officials would have completed all the formalities and as such they entered the building. An objection is taken by the Learned Additional
Government Pleader that though the building was occupied on 5-10-1989, the petitioner has chosen to issue a telegraphic notice through his
lawyer only 14-10-1989 and this delay will prove that the petitioner was also a party to the Police Department occupying the building.
Mr. R. S. Venkatachari, learned counsel for the petitioner, also states that the Police have vacated the building on the second of November,
1989 after notice has been issued by this Court on 31-10-1989 and states that the Police Department has behaved in such a way during the
occupation and has used the building much against the religious sentiments of Nattukottai Nagarathar Community. It seems that the Madam, which
is a religious centre has been used by the Police Department. Mr. R. S. Venkatachari, learned counsel states, that the Police were preparing non-
vegetarian food in the premises of the Madam which is much against the religious sentiments of Nattukottai Nagarathar Community, and prays that
inasmuch as the respondents misused the building by wrongfully entering it, this Court may award some costs to the petitioner.
Learned Additional Government Pleader also states that the writ petition has become infructuous since the Police Department has already
vacated the premises and nothing survives in the writ petiton. I have already stated above the contentions of the Additional Government Pleader
based upon the instructions given to him by the second respondent.
Considering the arguments of Mr. R. S. Venkatachari, learned counsel for the petitioner, and of the Learned Additional Government Pleader,
one thing is certain that nothing survives in the writ petition since the Police Department has already vacated the building on the second of
November 1989. The writ petition has therefore become infructuous and, accordingly, it is dismissed.
But, I am not able to understand the arguments of the Learned Additional Government Pleader that the Police Department entered the premises
on the presumption that the Revenue Officials would have completed all the formalities and would have obtained all the documents. One thing is
sure and, that is, there is no written contract between the Department and the petitioner and not even a piece of paper is shown to me that the
petitioner has accepted to rent out the building to the Department. It is also a fact that the Police Battalion entered the building which is a Madam
and has used it till the second of November, 1989 and also used the kitchen for a purpose which is not in tune with the religious sentiments of
Nattukottai Nagarathar Community. Prima facie, though nothing survives in the writ petition, I think that the Police Department has acted in an
arbitrary manner and has entered in building over enthusiastically since the formation of Sambuvaroyar District was in the offing. Considering this
and with a view that in future the respondents should not resort to such action, I am inclined to award as costs to the petitioner a sum of Rs.
2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) and I order accordingly.
However, it is open to the petitioner to claim any damages from the Department for the unlawful occupation as alleged by him.
Order accordingly.