Madras High Court
Aruppukottai Nadargal ... vs The Director And Joint Secretary ... on 31 March, 2023
W.P(MD)No.7406 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 31.03.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
W.P(MD)No.7406 of 2023
and
W.M.P(MD)Nos.6939 to 6941 of 2023
Aruppukottai Nadargal Uravinmurai
Pothu Abiviruthi Trust,
Represented by its Secretary (In Charge),
S.C. Saravanan,
No. 42, Big Bazaar Street,
Aruppukottai - 626 101. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Director and Joint Secretary to Government,
Tamil Development and Information
(Exhibition) Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai - 9.
2.The Commissioner of School Education,
College Road,
Chennai - 6.
3.The District Collector
Virudhunagar District,
Virudhunagar.
1/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.7406 of 2023
4.The Executive Engineer
PWD Department (Building Division),
Virudhunagar.
5.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Aruppukottai Revenue Division,
Aruppukottai.
6.The Tahsildhar
Aruppukottai Taluk,
Aruppukottai.
7.The Chief Educational Officer
Virudhunagar District,
Virudhunagar.
8.The District Educational Officer,
Aruppukottai,
Virudhunagar District.
9.The Commissioner
Aruppukottai Municipality,
Aruppukottai.
10.P.K.Kamaraj
11.P.M.C.Muthukumar
12.Y.Rajarathinam
13.P.M.C.Muthusamy
14.Ramar Nadar
15.V.Manoharan
16.S.A.K.P.Ravindran
2/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.7406 of 2023
17.J.Manimurugan ... Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating
to the permission dated 25.03.2023 in letter No.2412 /Exhibition/2023
on the file of the Director and the Joint Secretary to Government, Tamil
Development and Information (Exhibition) Department, Fort St. George,
Chennai-9, the first respondent herein and the order dated 24.03.2023 in
RC No.163/Inf./2023 on the file of the District Collector, Virudhunagar,
the third respondent herein and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Ilayaraja
For Respondents : Mr.R.Baskaran,
Additional Advocate General
assisted by
Mr.J.Ashok - for R1, R3 to R6
Additional Government Pleader
Mr.M.Ramesh - for R2, R7 & R8
Government Advocate
Mr.N.Dilip Kumar - for R9
Mr.K.K.Kannan - for R10 to R17
3/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.7406 of 2023
ORDER
The Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of a Certiorari
seeking records relating to permission dated 22.03.2023 in letter No.
2412/Exhibition/2023 on the file of the Director and Joint Secretary to
Government, Tamil Development and Information (Exhibition)
Department, Chennai, the first respondent herein and the order dated
24.03.2023 in R.C.No.163/Inf./2023 on the file of the District Collector
Virudhunagar, third respondent herein.
2. The Writ Petitioner, is Aruppukottai Nadargal
Uravinmurai Pothu Abiviruthi Trust, represented by its Secretary (In-
charge) S.C.Saravanan, Big Bazar Street, Aruppukkottai. There was an
earlier Writ Petition which had also come up before me for consideration
on 21.03.2023, which is W.P.(MD) No.6227 of 2023 filed by the same
Writ Petitioner. The respondents, 10 to 17 respondents herein namely,
P.K.Kamaraj, P.M.C.Muthukumar, Y.Rajarathinam, P.M.C.Muthusamy,
Ramar Nadar, V.Manoharan, S.A.K.P.Ravindran and J.Manimurugan,
were also impleaded in the said Writ Petition as respondents 12 to 19.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.7406 of 2023
The relief sought in that particular Writ Petition was for a Mandamus
directing the respondents 1 to 11 therein, to consider the representation,
dated 27.02.2023 and 09.03.2023 forbearing the respondents 12 to 19
namely, the individuals named above, from conducting
Muthumariamman Panguni Ursavam Temple festival from 28.03.2023 at
Aruppukkottai and Exhibition in SBK Boys’ School ground from
26.03.2023 or any other date and it is stated that both the institution
belong to Aruppukottai Nadargal Uravinmurai Pothu Abiviruthi Trust.
3. In the present Writ Petition, the relief which has been
sought in the nature of certiorari is again with respect to the very same
festival which, after the order in the earlier Writ Petition, had been
permitted to be conducted by the first and third respondents herein. In
effect, the very same festival is sought to be prevented from being
conducted, in the first place in the earlier Writ Petition, on the basis of a
representation and now on the basis of the order passed by the
respondents 1 and 3. When the earlier Writ Petition came up, this Court
after hearing the learned counsels for the respective parties had stated as
follows :
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.7406 of 2023
"2. There is a School at Aruppukottai, which
is run by Aruppukottai Nadargal Uravinmurai
Pothu Abiviruthi Trust. The said School is called as
S.B.K.Higher Secondary School. Unfortunately,
owing to various circumstances, there appears to be
a power struggle among the office bearers of the
Abiviruthi Trust. This has led to various litigations
which are pending.
3. The issue in this Writ Petition is that in
that School campus, a function is to be held in the
nature of an exhibition. Additionally, there is also a
festival to be conducted owing to the ensuing days
in Panguni Tamil Month.
4. The petitioner have their grievances. They
claim that the respondents 12 to 19 should not be
the persons who could conduct the festival or the
exhibition. They claim that the issue of the
competency or locus of the said respondents, is
pending before the civil Court.
5. This Court is not entering into any
discussion about that particular aspect. However,
as a concept, if the exhibition and the festival are to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.7406 of 2023
be conducted within the School premises,
permission for the same will have to be examined
by the District Collector and by the Joint
Commissioner of HR & CE (Admn) Department,
Madurai. Representations in this regard have been
given by the petitioner herein. References have been
drawn to an earlier occasion, when the function
was sought to be held within the School campus
and the Court at that time was of the opinion that
functions should be held elsewhere, but had given
liberty to those who organized the exhibition, to
apply to the District Collector for permission. So
far as the festival is concerned, it comes under the
purview of the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE
(Admn) Department, Madurai.
6. The District Collector, Virudhunagar
District, Virudhunagar and the Joint Commissioner,
HR & CE (Admn) Department, Madurai, will have
to examine whether permission can be granted to
conduct the exhibition and also the festival within
the School campus.
7. I am informed that the School is closed and
that therefore, there would not be any danger
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.7406 of 2023
caused to any of the students or parents or the
teachers or staffs. It is stated that since the campus,
as on date, is vacant and free, the exhibition and
the festival can be conducted. Necessary
regulations will have to be put in place and
necessary conditions will have to be imposed. These
are aspects which can be considered only by the
District Collector or by the Joint Commissioner.
8. The onus is, therefore, shifted to the
District Collector, Virudhunagar and the Joint
Commissioner, Madurai to examine the application
already made by the petitioner herein and obtain
reports from the necessary officials including the
District Educational Officer, the Fire Safety
Department, the Police Officials and such other
officials about the possibility of conducting the
exhibition within the School campus and the festival
within the School campus. Let an endeavour be
made to apply mind to all possible aspects and an
order be passed on or before 24.03.2023. Before
passing the order, the District Collector and the
Joint Commissioner may also put on notice the
petitioner and also the respondents 12 to 19. I
would place a request on the petitioner and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.7406 of 2023
respondents 12 to 19 to participate in any
discussion with the District Collector and the Joint
Commissioner with aim to bring about a solution
and not to frustrate the object of conducting the
exhibition or the festival.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the
respondents 12 to 19 may give necessary
instructions that all interested parties may make a
forage to the Office of the District Collector,
Virudhunagar and the Office of the Joint
Commissioner, HR & CE (Admn), Madurai even
tomorrow (22.02.2023) at any time between 3.00
p.m., and 5.00 p.m., and impress upon the two
officials that orders are required to be passed, on or
before 24.03.2023. The copy of this order may also
be taken.
10. Registry before issuing the order copy
may amend the cause title so far as the 5th
respondent is concerned by describing the Joint
Commissioner, HR & CE (Admn) Department, as at
Madurai and delete the address at Sivagangai. The
amendment to the cause title alone may be made
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.7406 of 2023
and order copy be issued. No further order is
required.
11. With the above observations, this Writ
Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed."
4. The entire order had been extracted above. It is seen that
in that particular order it had been stated by at the bar that the School
was closed and that therefore, there would not be any danger to any of
the students or parents or teachers or staffs. It was also stated that the
campus was vacant and free and exhibition and the festival can therefore
be conducted. It is today represented by another counsel on behalf of the
very same petitioner that even as on that date, the schedule for the 10th
standard public examination has been released and now the order
impugned is questioned on the ground that the examination would be on
going. This statement is countered by the learned Additional Advocate
General that subsequent to the earlier order in which directions had been
given for a meeting to be conducted and a decision to be taken, a
decision had been taken to conduct the festivals and necessary safety
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.7406 of 2023
measures have been put in place and therefore, it had been directed that
the festival can be proceeded with.
5. The fact that the examinations were scheduled is a fact
which was known much earlier. They were not scheduled in a weeks'
time or after the date of the earlier order. Even at the earlier hearing
date, the date of the examination had been known to the petitioner
herein. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said
fact had been stated in the affidavit but, what had been argued had been
reduced and if what had been reduced after hearing the argument was not
to the satisfaction or was not to the satisfaction of the petitioner herein,
then the proper approach would have been to file an appeal instead of
coming back to this Court complaining about non-consideration of
certain points. This cannot be appreciated.
6. The fact is that in the earlier order direction had been
given that the petitioner and the private respondents who had been
named aforesaid should participate in the meeting conducted by the first
respondent herein. There is no ground raised that they did not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.7406 of 2023
participate. They were obligated to participate. The order impugned was
passed after the participation. The order was passed after taking every
view into consideration.
7. Re-agitating or re-litigating the same issue had been
frowned upon by the Hon'?ble Supreme Court.
8. In K.K.Modi Vs. K.N.Modi and others reported in AIR
1998 SC 1297 = 1998 (3) SCC 573, it had been held with respect to
abuse of process of Court by referring to the Supreme Court Practice,
1995 published by Sweet & Maxwell, as follows:
? "One of the examples cited as an abuse of the
process of Court is re-litigation. It is an abuse of
the process of the Court and contrary to justice and
public policy for a party to re~litigate the same
issue which has already been tried and decided
earlier against him. The re-agitation may or may
not be barred as res-judicata. But if the same issue
is sought to be re-agitated, it also amounts to an
abuse of the process of Court. A proceeding being
filed for a collateral purpose, or a spurious claim
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.7406 of 2023
being made in litigation may also in a given set of
facts amount to an abuse of the process of the
Court. Frivolous or vexatious proceedings may also
amount to an abuse of the process of Court
especially where the proceedings are absolutely
groundless. The Court then has the power to stop
such proceedings summarily and prevent the time of
the public and the Court from being wasted.
Undoubtedly, it is a matter of Court-s discretion
whether such proceedings should be stopped or not;
and this discretion has to be exercised with
circumspection. It is a jurisdiction which should be
sparingly exercised only in special cases. The Court
should also be satisfied that there is no chance of
the suit succeeding?".
9. In T.Arivandandam v. T.V.Satyapal reported in 1977 (4)
SCC 467, the Hon?'ble Supreme Court was concerned with re-litigation.
In that particular case, the father of the appellant before the Supreme
Court had challenged eviction proceedings, lost it, had appealed again
and lost again and then filed a revision before the High Court. That was
also dismissed. Thereafter, the son had filed a fresh suit for the very same
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.7406 of 2023
property seeking protection from dispossession. The Hon?ble Supreme
Court held as follows:
"?The pathology of litigative addiction ruins
the poor of this country and the Bar has a role to
cure this deleterious tendency of parties to launch
frivolous and vexatious cases.
5.We have not the slightest hesitation in
condemning the petitioner for the gross abuse of the
process of the court repeatedly and unrepentently
resorted to. From the statement of the facts found in
the Judgment of the High Court, it is perfectly plain
that the suit now pending before the First Munsif-s
Court, Bangalore, is a flagrant misuse of the
mercies of the law in receiving plaints. The learned
Munsif must remember that if on a meaningful _ not
formal _ reading of the plaint it is manifestly
vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not
disclosing a clear right to sue, he should exercise
his power under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C., taking
care to see that the ground mentioned therein is
fulfilled. And, if clever drafting has created the
illusion of a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the
first hearing by examining the party searchingly
under Order 10, C.P.C. An activist Judge is the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.7406 of 2023
answer to irresponsible law suits. The Trial Courts
would insist imperatively on examining the party at
the first hearing so that bogus litigation can be shot
down at the earliest stage. The Penal Code is also
resourceful enough to meet such men, (Cr.XI) and
must be triggered against them. In this case, the
learned Judge to his cost realised what George
Bernard Shaw remarked on the assassination of
Mahatma Gandhi:
"?It is dangerous to be too good."?
6.The Trial Court in this case will remind
itself of Section 35-A, C.P.C., and take deterrent
action if it is satisfied that the litigation was
inspired by vexatious motives and altogether
groundless. In any view, that suit has no survival
value and should be disposed of forthwith after
giving an immediate hearing to the parties
concerned.
7. ... Another moral of this unrighteous chain
litigation is the gullible grant of ex-parte orders
tempts gamblers in litigation into easy Courts. A
Judge who succumbs to ex-parte pressure in
unmerited cases helps devalue the judicial
process."?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.7406 of 2023
10. In Ranipet Municipality, rep by its Commissioner &
Special Officer Vs. M.Shamsheerkhan reported in 1998 (1) CTC 66 :
1997 (2) LW 761, a learned Judge of this Court held that "?when the
intention of the party is only one, that is to re-agitate the very same
matter already concluded, the subsequent suit has to be axed at the
threshold."?
11. It is thus seen that the Courts have come down heavily
on the same issue being agitated again and again. The petitioner had
participated in the earlier discussion with the first respondent herein.
12. It is stated that there an order was passed by the Division
Bench of this Court wherein, it had been specifically stated that a
function should not be conducted within the school premises. The said
order had been pointed out even when the earlier Writ Petition was heard
and thereafter, in the presence of all the learned counsels the matter was
directed to be examined by the first respondent herein and thereafter, the
first respondent had passed an order which is now complained by the
Writ Petitioner. That is an order in W.A.(MD) No.463 of 2016 dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.7406 of 2023
29.03.2016, SPK Exhibition Committee, SPK Boys' Higher Secondary
School, Aruppukottai, represented by its Secretary P.Sankarasekaran
Vs. The Secretary to Government, Tamil Development and
Information Department, Chennai, wherein, the issue was about
conducting the exhibition from 27.03.2016 to 17.04.2016 on the basis of
a representation given by the School itself. The Secretary of the
Exhibition Committee had filed the writ appeal.
13. In W.A(MD) No.463 of 2016, it had been stated that the
counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.5601 of 2016 had sought
leave of that Court to withdraw the Writ Petition itself. It had been stated
that the other aspects are not being adverted to, since the Writ Petition
itself was being withdrawn and it was specifically stated as follows at
paragraph No.4 :
"4.Mr.A.V.Arun, learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that the SBK School would
make a fresh application to the District
Collector, Virudhunagar District, seeking
permission to conduct an Exhibition in terms of
G.O.Ms.No.74 Tamil Development and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.7406 of 2023
Information (Exhibition) Department dated
29.05.2014."
14. It is thus seen that at every point of time, the endeavour
of the petitioner herein had been to approach the official authorities
particularly, the District Collector, give a representation and then
question the order.
15. Even in this particular issue, the first respondent and the
District Collector have both passed orders. They have stipulated various
conditions. It is no doubt important that the education of the students
should not be affected but it is contended by the learned Additional
Advocate General that the festival is to be conducted only in the evening
hours after the examination hours and the examination would not be
affected.
16. This Court cannot appreciate the same issue being
brought about and another counsel arguing though it is stated that
Mr.A.V.Arun is available through online but could not connect owing to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.7406 of 2023
connectivity issues. But the fact remains that the earlier order was
passed in the presence of all the learned counsels. The onus shifted to
the first respondent to pass necessary orders. Before the first respondent
the petitioner could have agitated all the issues which have now been
stated.
17. It is also complained that the stability certificate and the
certificate from the Electricity Department had not been obtained. That is
a issue which the Collector should examine and ensure that necessary
safety measures are provided.
18. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the school premises should not be used for conducting of
festivals or for exhibitions. But the petitioner himself has participated in
the proceedings of the first respondent which proceedings was conducted
only with the sole aim of regulating and deciding measures as to how the
festival should conducted. The petitioner cannot now turn back and state
that the festival itself should not be conducted. He could have given
his/their suggestion for regulating the manner in which the exhibition of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.7406 of 2023
the festival is to be conducted. Participating in that particular meeting
and coming back and complaining about the decision taken, can never be
appreciated. The petitioner must realize there must be a finality to the
litigation and merely because, the petitioner has the coffers of the
Schools Trust at his hands does not mean that he should flitter money
away filing vexatious and frivolous litigations.
19. After the order had been dictated and the matter had
been stated as dismissed, Mr.A.V.Arun appeared back on the video
screen. I do appreciate his presence and am thankful for his appearance
and presence.
20. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
31.03.2023
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
NCC : Yes / No
RM
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.7406 of 2023
To
1.The Director and Joint Secretary to Government,
Tamil Development and Information
(Exhibition) Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai - 9.
2.The Commissioner of School Education,
College Road,
Chennai - 6.
3.The District Collector
Virudhunagar District,
Virudhunagar.
4.The Executive Engineer
PWD Department (Building Division),
Virudhunagar.
5.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Aruppukottai Revenue Division,
Aruppukottai.
6.The Tahsildhar
Aruppukottai Taluk,
Aruppukottai.
7.The Chief Educational Officer
Virudhunagar District,
Virudhunagar.
8.The District Educational Officer,
Aruppukottai,
Virudhunagar District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.7406 of 2023
9.The Commissioner
Aruppukottai Municipality,
Aruppukottai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.7406 of 2023
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
rm
W.P(MD)No.7406 of 2023
31.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
