P.n. srinivasan (deceased)_vs_the_state_of_tamil_nadu_on_23_january,_2014

Madras High Court
P.N. Srinivasan (Deceased) vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 23 January, 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23.01.2014
CORAM:
The Honourable Mr.Justice SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI
AND
The Honourable Mr.Justice K.K.SASIDHARAN
W.P.No.22516 of 2006
& M.P.NO.1 of 2006
1. P.N. SRINIVASAN (DECEASED)
2. P. NAGARAJAN
(P-2 SUBSTITUTED AS LR IN THE
PLACE OF DECEASED PETITIONER
AS PER ORDER DATED 3.10.2013
IN M.P.NO.1 OF 2010 IN
W.P.NO.22516 OF 2006) ... PETITIONER
Vs
1. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU
REP. BY ITS SECY TO GOVERNMENT
HIGHWAYS DEPT.
FORT ST. GEORGE
CHENNAI 600 009.
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (GENERAL)
HIGHWAYS DEPT.
CHENNAI 600 005.
3. THE COMMISSIONER
CORPORATION OF CHENNAI
RIPPON BUILDINGS
CHENNAI 600 003.
4. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
EGMORE, CHENNAI - 600 008.
5. J.MOHANRAJ
.(R5-IMPL AS PER ORD.DT.29/7/13
IN MP2/06)
6. K.CHANDRASEKARAN
R6-IMPL AS PER ORD.DT.
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/115954407/ 1

13/12/2013 IN MP 3/13)
7. C. SHIVAKUMAR
R-7- IMPL AS PER ORD.DT.17/12/13
IN MP 2/13)
8. AYANPURAM SHIVAJI BABU @ S. CHITTI BABU
IN MP 4/13)
9. T.K.SATHIA SEELAN
IN MP 5/13)
10. TAMIL SANGA PALAGAI
REP. BY ITS FOUNDER
M.C. TAMIL PITHAN
IN MP 6/13) ....RESPONDENTS
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ o
(Prayer amended as per order dated 8 July 2013 in M.P.No.1 of 2009 in W.P.No.22516 of 2006).
For Petitioner : Mr.R. Gandhi
Senior Counsel
for Mr.R.G. Narendhiran
For Respondents : Mr.AL. Somayaji
Advocate General
Assisted by
Mr.S.T.S. Murthy
Govt. Pleader
for RR 1, 2 and 4
Dr.C. Ravichandran
for R.3
Mr.S. Prabaharan
for Mr.T.P.Senthilkumar for R.6
Mr.T.Sivagnanasambandan for R.7
Mr.S. Ezhil Raj for RR 8 & 9
Dr. G.Krishnamoorthy for R.10
-----------
O R D E R
SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J AND K.K.SASIDHARAN, J Introductory:

The Governor of Tamil Nadu announced the policy decision taken by the Government of Tamil
Nadu to erect a statue in memory of the versatile Actor late Padmabushan Sivaji Ganesan, opposite
to the office of the Director General of Police at Kamarajar Salai, in his address in the Legislative
Assembly on 24 May 2006. However, while erecting the statue the concerned authorities have
ignored the place indicated in the address given by the Governor and erected it on the middle
portion of an arterial road (in fact not near D.G.P. Office but opposite to Queen Mary's College)
giving rise to a dispute and dragging the name of an artist of repute to the midst of a litigation.
A Brief Backdrop:-
2. This pro bono publico petition was originally filed for a direction, forbearing the Government of
Tamil Nadu from in any way permitting or installing the statue of late Sivaji Ganesan, in the three
road junction of Kamarajar Salai Radhakrishnan Salai, opposite to Gandhi Statue on the National
Highways and a consequential direction to the authorities to provide an alternative place to install
the statue.
3. The statue was installed on 12 July 2006. The petitioner therefore amended the prayer and now
seeks a direction to remove the statue from its present location.
4. The writ petition was originally filed by a Gandhian, who took part actively in the freedom
movement. The petitioner in his affidavit filed in support of the writ petition contended that the
statue of Mahatma Gandhi at Marina was the creation of a well known sculptor. The statue is a
centre of attraction.
5. The proposal to erect the statue of Sri. Sivaji Ganesan was opposed by the petitioner on two
grounds, viz., that it would obstruct the view of Gandhi Statue and that it would violate the
undertaking given by the Government of Tamil Nadu before the Supreme Court that no statue or
structure would be erected on public road. During the currency of the writ petition, the writ
petitioner died and his son was recognised as the legal representative to continue the litigation.
6. The Government wanted to unveil the statue on 21 July 2006. In view of the urgency, the writ
petition was taken up for consideration on 19 July 2006. The Division Bench found that the State of
Tamil Nadu has given an undertaking before the Supreme Court that no temporary or permanent
structure which affects the free flow of traffic be allowed on main roads. In view of the undertaking
given by the State Government, the learned Advocate General took time to approach the Supreme
Court with a clarification application. The Division Bench while adjourning the matter by four weeks
(so as to enable the State to approach the Supreme Court), made it clear that all actions taken by the
Government henceforth would be subject to the orders of the Supreme Court. Thereafter the State
moved the Supreme Court with a clarification application. The Supreme Court refused to clarify the
order.
7. The Assistant Commissioner of Police (Traffic), Mylapore, pursuant to the order dated 23 October
2013 filed an affidavit indicating that on account of the location of statue the visibility of the
motorists, who are intending to take right turn to Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai from Kamarajar Salai

would be affected. The traffic Police opined that shifting the statue from the present location would
help easy flow of traffic.
Submissions:
8. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that the Division Bench has already
passed an order dated 19 July 2006 holding that the affidavit filed before the Supreme Court in
K.K.Road Merchants v. District Collector (2004) 13 SCC 60 would apply equally to cases of
encroachment, obstruction, etc., made on the road maintained by the Corporation and the local
authorities. The clarification petition filed by the State has already been disposed of by the Supreme
Court pointing out that no such clarification is necessary. The issue raised by the petitioner
therefore is covered by the judgment in K.K.Road Merchants. The learned Senior Counsel
contended that the statue of Sivaji Ganesan would obstruct the view of Gandhi Statue. The learned
Senior Counsel further contended that the report submitted by the Traffic Police very clearly shows
that the view of motorists would be affected on account of the location of statue. The learned Senior
Counsel therefore wanted to shift the statue to some other place and to clear the place for free traffic
movement.
9. The learned Advocate General appearing for respondents 1, 2 and 4 would submit that the State
has no intention of shifting the statue from its present location.
10. Thiru S. Prabhakaran, learned counsel for respondent No.6 would submit that the Government
has taken a policy decision to erect the statue of Dr.Sivaji Ganesan opposite to the office of Director
General of Police. Accordingly, the statue was erected. It is not open to the successor Government to
change such policy decision. The learned counsel contended that the statue would not in any way
give hindrance to free flow of traffic. According to the learned counsel, the statue of late Sivaji
Ganesan is not in front of the statue of Mahatma Gandhi and as such the contra contention taken in
the writ petition has no factual basis. It was contended that, removal of statue would affect the
sentiments of the people of Tamil Nad besides the fans of late Actor Sivaji Ganesah.
11. The learned counsel for the impleaded parties made similar submissions. According to them, the
statue was erected to honour late Sivaji Ganesan and as such it is not proper for the Government to
direct removal and re-erection of statue.
Analysis:
The issue:
12. The core issues that arise for our consideration is as to (1) whether the location of the statue of
Sri. Sivaji Ganesan in the three road junction of Kamarajar Salai-Radhakrishnan Salai would violate
the undertaking given by the State of Tamil Nadu before the Supreme Court, and (2) whether it
would obstruct the clear vision of motorists and the free flow of vehicular traffic on the arterial road.
Earlier order dated 19 July 2006:

13. The issue regarding violation of the undertaking given before the Supreme Court has already
been indicated by the Division Bench in its order dated 19 July 2006. The Division Bench was of the
view that the undertaking would apply even to the City of Chennai. The relevant observation reads
thus:
"9. We have carefully considered the above submissions and perusedorder of the Apex Court.
Though that was a case relating to holding of public meetings, erecting any stage at a particular
place namely K.K.Road, Villupuram, from the affidavit filed by the Secretary to Government, Home
Department, it is clear that the averments in the affidavit are applicable to the City of Chennai as
well. In paragraph-2 of the affidavit extracted by the Apex Court, it is stated that a reference has
been made to Section 220 of theChennai City Municipal Corporation, 1919 which inter alia provides
that no one shall build any wall or erect any fence or other obstruction or projection or make any
encroachment in or over any street, the control of which is vested in the Corporation. The affidavit
further proceeds by referring to Section 222 of the above said Act which provides that the
Commissioner may by notice require the occupier to remove encroachment or obstruction in or over
any street the control of which is vested in the Corporation. The affidavit also further proceeds that
similar provisions are also available in other Acts relating to the Municipal Corporations of Madurai,
Coimbatore, Tiruchirapalli, Salem and Tirunelveli in Tamil Nadu. It also refers to the provisions of
Section 180 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 which provides that no one shall
build any wall or erect any fence or other obstruction, or projection, or make any encroachment in
or over any street except as provided in the said Act. It also refers to Section 180-A of the said Act
which provides that all streets vested in or to be vested in or maintained by a municipal council shall
be open to persons of whatever caste or creed. It further refers to Section 182(1) of the said Act,
which provides that the executive authority may by notice require the owner or occupier of any
premises to remove or alter any projection, encroachment or obstruction (other than a door, gate,
bar or ground-floor window) situated against or in front of such premises and in or over any street.
10. On a plain reading of the above affidavit, we are of the prima facie view that the averments made
in the said affidavit are not only applicable to the facts of that case, but also for encroachment,
obstruction, etc. made on the roads maintained by the Corporation and the Local Authorities. When
pointed out, the learned Advocate General requested the Court that the respondents/State may be
given liberty to approach the Apex court for appropriate orders, directions or clarifications as to the
applicability of the averments made by the Secretary to Government, Home Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu before the Apex Court, which was recorded by the Apex Court and
closed the Civil Appeal on the basis of the said affidavit.
(emphasis supplied)
14. The State having convinced that the erection of statue on the main road would violate the
undertaking given in K.K. Road Merchants case (2004(13) SCC 60) rightly moved the Supreme
Court for clarification. It is a matter of record that the Supreme Court disposed of I.A. filed by the
State for clarification by recording that no order is required for clarification of the Government
Order dated 26 June 2006. The prima facie finding recorded by the Division Bench on 19 July 2006
has not been disturbed by the Supreme Court.

15. The road in question is maintained by the Highways department. The petitioner has taken up a
substantial contention that the entire stretch of Kamarajar Salai has been declared as a road under
Section 3 of the Highways Act 2001. The State Government in exercise of its powers under Section 4
of the Act issued a notification in G.O.Ms.110, Highways Department, dated 5 June 2003 declaring
Chennai City Roads as a division for the purpose of the Highways. This contention was recorded by
the Division Bench in its order dated 19 July 2006. The State has not denied this basic contention.
The Kamarajar Salai is an arterial road which connects Parrys with other parts of City like Adayar,
Mylapore, Thiruvanmiyur etc. This road connects ECR at Thiruvanmiyur. The office of Director
General of Police, Light House, Queen Marry's College, Madras University, Legislative Assembly,
Secretariat, Reserve Bank of India, etc., are situated on the side of this road. In fact this is the road
leading to the High Court from various parts of the City.
16. The State of Tamil Nadu has filed a comprehensive undertaking before the Supreme Court. The
undertaking would apply to all the local bodies in the State of Tamil Nadu. The solemn undertaking
given by the then State Government would equally bind the successive Governments. The
undertaking given before the Apex Court of the Country should be respected by one and all. A bare
reading of the order in K.K.Road Merchants would make the position very clear that the State has
unconditionally agreed to abstain from putting up permanent structures on main roads, affecting
traffic. The undertaking reads thus:
I respectfully submit that in pursuance of the interim orders dated 29.7.2002 of this Hon ble
Court in the above matter directing to take instructions to the effect that no temporary or
permanent structure shall ever be allowed on a main road thereby blocking free movement of traffic,
the subject was considered by the Council of Ministers of the State of Tamil Nadu in its meeting held
on 19.9.2002, in which it was decided that no temporary or permanent structure which affects free
flow of traffic be allowed on main roads. A copy of the minutes of the said meeting of the Council of
Ministers is in Annexure I.
It is respectfully submitted that Section 220 of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919
(Tamil Nadu Act 4 of 1919) inter alia provides that no one shall build any wall or erect any fence or
other obstruction or projection or make any encroachment in or over any street, the control of which
is vested in the Corporation. Further, Section 222 of the said Act provides that the Commissioner by
notice require the occupier to remove encroachment or obstruction in or over any street the control
of which is vested in the Corporation. Similar provisions are also available in other Acts relating to
the Municipal Corporations or Madurai, Coimbatore, Tiruchirapalli, Salem and Tirunelveli in Tamil
Nadu. It is also submitted that Section 180 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920
(Tamil Nadu Act 5 of 1920) provides that no one shall build any wall or erect any fence or other
obstruction, or projection, or make any encroachment in or over any street except as provided in the
said Act. Section 180-A of the said Act provides that all streets vested in or to be vested in or
maintained by a municipal council shall be open to persons of whatever caste or creed. Section
182(1) of the Said Act provides that the executive authority may by notice require the owner or
occupier of any premises to remove or alter any projection, encroachment or obstruction (other than
a door, gate, bar or ground floor window) situated against or in front of such premises and in or over
any street. Relevant extracts of the said provisions of the said Acts are in Annexure II

17. The learned counsel for respondent No.6 by placing reliance on the judgment in M.S. Arasa
Kumar v. The Government of Tamil Nadu (2013) 1 CTC 533) submitted that the present
Government has erected an arch on Kamarajar Salai and when a challenge was made, the High
Court refused to interfere in the matter.
18. The arch to commemorate the Diamond Jubilee Celebration of Tami Nadu Legislative Assembly
was constructed without obstructing the vehicular or pedestrian movement. Paragraphs 22 and 30
of the Judgement in M.S. Arasa Kumar would prove the distinguishing feature.
"22. Under Section 220 of Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, no one has got right to build any
wall or erect any fence or other obstruction or projection or make any encroachment in or over any
street. Section 220 thus prohibits obstruction or projection in streets. According to the Government,
the proposed Arch in Rajaji Salai has been planned in such a way and has been designed structurally
that there would not be any intermediate pillar/structure in the middle of the road and it will not
pose any hindrance to the movement of vehicles. The width of Rajaji Salai is 18.70 meters and the
said width will be maintained even after the construction of Arch to facilitate free flow of undivided
four lane carriageway traffic as of now. It is stated that the clear height of Arch from the floor
surface of the road will be 6.50 meters which is higher than the stipulated mandatory clearance
required for structures like Arch. Before us the structural design of Arch has been produced. On a
perusal of the design of Arch, it is seen that pillars supporting the Arch on both sides have been
proposed to be located on the pavement of both sides of road. There will be an opening inside the
pillars on both sides to facilitate the pedestrian movement. It is stated that Arch has been designed
based on the Confluence of Greek and Latin Architecture inspired by the design cues and intricate
patterns of the Fort St. George. When the Arch has been structurally designed without any
intermediate pillars in the middle of the road and if the Arch would not affect free flow of traffic or
pedestrian movement, it cannot be said that the proposed Arch in Rajaji Salai would be an
obstruction or encroachment on a public street. By passing a resolution according permission for
construction of Arch, it cannot be said that the Corporation of Chennai has exceeded its jurisdiction.
It is also pertinent to note that Writ Petitioner neither impleaded the Corporation of Chennai nor
challenged the resolution dated 29.10.2012 according permission for construction of Arch.
30. As pointed out earlier, Arch is proposed to be constructed with two pillars located on the
pavement of both sides of the road and with opening inside pillars of both sides to facilitate
pedestrian movement. The primary object of building the roads is to facilitate vehicles/people to
travel from one place to another. The Corporation of Chennai has an obligation to maintain the
roads and pedestrian paths for the benefit of general public. When the Arch is proposed to be
constructed in commemoration of Diamond Jubilee Celebrations of Tamilnadu Legislative Assembly
just near to Fort St. George where Tamilnadu Legislative Assembly is presently functioning, it
cannot be said that the Arch proposed to be constructed would amount to hindrance to public. In
the counter, the Government stated that the construction would be carried out in such a manner
that it will not have any adverse impact on vehicular movement, safety, security or of access to the
surroundings. Such being the position, the contention of Petitioner that construction of Arch at
Rajaji Salai would be a hindrance to the vehicular movement is not sustainable.

19. The Supreme Court in Abdul Farook v. Municipal Council. Perambalur 2009(15) SCC 351 while
setting aside the permission given by the Government of Tamil Nadu to construct two arches on the
occasion of 57th Birthday celebrations of the Chief Minister observed that "the doctrine of good
governance, requires the Government to rise above their political interest and act only in public
interest and welfare of its people.
20. Thiru S. Prabhakaran, learned counsel for the sixth respondent by placing reliance on the
judgment in State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Shyam Sundar 2011 (8) SCC 737 contended that a valid policy
adopted by a Government should not be changed with the change of Government.
21. The decision in K. Shayam Sunder has no application to the facts of this case, for more than one
reason. Here the policy was to erect the statue of Sri. Sivaji Ganesan opposite to the office of D.G.P.
It was not to erect on the middle of public road. The authorities while implementing the decision
changed the very location.
22. The Supreme Court in Jitendra Kumar v. State of Haryana (2007) 14 Scale 125 while re-iterating
the legal position that the policy adopted by a particular Government should not be changed at the
whims and fancies of the successive Government put a rider that the successive Government is not
bound to follow the illegal decision taken by the earlier Government.
23. The present Government appears to have not taken any action to remove the statue. The present
writ petition is at the instance of a citizen and the question is as to whether the erection of statue
just on the middle of the road would affect vehicular traffic and the view of motorists. The petitioner
wanted only shifting of statue to another convenient place for the purpose of clearing the road.
24. The Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, Traffic in his inspection report very clearly
stated about the obstruction to the free traffic on account of the erection of this statue. The relevant
paragraphs of the report read thus:
" 5. It is submitted that because of the installation of the statue at the above mentioned place the
visibility of the motorists who are intending to take right turn to Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai from
Kamarajar Salai is affected. It is further submitted that the motorists who are intending to take right
turn to Santhome High Road from Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai also have a chance to hit the motorists
who are intending to take right turn to Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai from Kamarajar Salai as the statue is
obstructing the visibility of motorists of both the sides.
6. I further submit that the motorists who are intending to proceed to Kamarajar Salai from
Santhome High Road also likely to hit the pedestrians as the statue obstructs the visibility of the
motorists from noticing the movement of pedestrians who are intending to cross from East to West
at Kamarajar Salai.
7. It is further submitted that during night hours i.e. after 2300 hrs, the signal will be put on
automatic mode without any traffic police personnel. Because of this the motorists tends to violate
the signal and because of the obstruction of view due to the installation of this statue, number of

accidents have taken place at this junction. For instance in the year 2012, 12 accidents including a
fatal accident and during the current year (2013) so far 8 accidents have taken place at this junction.
8. It is further submitted that the motorists of Kamarajar Salai would get more space to take right
turn if the statue is removed. I have the highest regard for the great actor and hence I am of the
opinion that the statue may be shifted on the Marina Beach front along with the other statue which
will have no impact on the movement of traffic and will ensure the safety of the motorists."
25. The learned counsel for the sixth respondent submitted that there is a Clock Tower located
immediately after this statue and request was not made to remove the said tower. We have perused
the sketch and plan of the area. The clock tower is placed in such a manner that it would not affect
the visibility of motorists. The said tower has been in existence from time immemorial and in fact it
operates as a junction point. Therefore we reject the contention regarding selective action taken by
the petitioner to remove this statue alone.
Government Policy - must be for public good:
26. The Constitution of India guarantees right to move throughout the territory of India. This right
under Article 19(1)(d) cannot be construed in a very narrow manner. It would cover all incidental
rights which would make this constitutional right meaningful. Nobody has got a right to claim
erection of permanent structures like statues on roads. The State is not an exception. The
Government is for the people. Therefore any policy adopted by the Government must be for public
good. The Government symbolises the will and wishes of people. The policy must reflect such social
aspirations of the people. The Government have no special right to erect a statue on a public road.
The regulations regarding prohibition of permanent structure like statues on roads would equally
apply to the State. The fact that on occasions, the Government was permitted or action of
Government was upheld, would not give a vested right to undertake similar actions at all point of
time. The welfare of the public must be the paramount consideration of State. In case the policy of
the State violates statutory provisions or offend the fundamental right given to the citizens,
including equality clause, judicial review is permissible even in the field of Government policy. The
immunity given to the policy would not be extended to the consequential actions which were not
contemplated by the policy. In case while executing the policy the executive have gone beyond the
policy adopted by the State in a particular subject matter, judicial review is available to prevent such
transgressions.
27. The decision to honour public personalities, artists of repute, etc., must not be at the cost of
public convenience. The public roads are nothing but public property. The roads are formed by
acquiring land. The citizen is deprived of his land by the process of acquisition. The acquisition is
justified in larger public interest. The roads constructed after such acquisition are for public
purpose. It is only for the welfare and betterment of public all such developmental activities are
undertaken. The people should be allowed to enjoy the benefits of such development. The National
Highways and State Highways constructed by acquiring private property and by using public funds,
can be used only for the travelling needs of public. It cannot be converted for other collateral
purposes like erection of statues and memorials.

28. The Court exercises its jurisdiction in furtherance of justice. The Court should therefore interfere
in case there is a complete apathy towards the common man and a cynical unconcern for the law of
the land.
Public Roads not for erection of statues:
29. The roads and streets are meant for pedestrians and motorists. It is not meant for erection of
statues. There is no dispute that the leaders and stalwarts should be respected in an appropriate
manner. By erecting statues on the middle of public road, by giving difficulties to the motorists and
general public, actually we are showing disrespect to such distinguishing personalities The
memorials should be erected only at unobjectionable places and in any case not on the middle of
roads. The names of celebrated artists like Thiru Sivaji Ganesan should not be dragged into the
midst of litigation by the State by erecting his statue on the middle of road, to the dislike of
motorists and pedestrians.
30. The Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.403, Revenue Department dated 26 June 2006 shows
that the Commissioner of Police, while recommending the proposal, made it clear that the pedestal
should not be elevated affecting the view of vehicles passing towards Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai. The
Government also permitted erection of statue without affecting the traffic flow and the same is
evident from paragraph No.4 of the Government Order.
31. The materials available on record would clearly show that the statue of Dr. Shivaji Ganesan,
erected on the middle of the road at Kamarajar Salai Junction would affect the traffic flow and the
view of vehicles passing through Dr. Radhakrishanan Salai.
32. While exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in furtherance of
justice, the Court is concerned only about the cause. In fact, while setting aside the order of
allotment of valuable land to Sri. Sourav Ganguly, Cricketer of International Repute by the State of
West Bengal (Humanity v. State of W.B., (2011) 6 SCC 125), the Supreme Court made the position
very clear in the following words:
"54. Before I conclude, I make it clear that I am aware that the allottee is a cricketer of great repute
and has led this country to victory in many tournaments, both in India and abroad. I have watched
him on the television on many occasions and was delighted to see his glorious cover drives and
effortlessly lofted shots over the fence. But as a Judge, I have different duties to discharge. Here I
must be objective and eschew my likes and dislikes and render justice to a cause which has come
before the Court.
33. The traffic police have already given a report. It is now for the State to take a decision in the
matter.
34. We therefore issue a writ of mandamus directing the State of Tamil Nadu, first respondent in the
writ petition to take a decision regarding removal of the statue in the light of our observation, as
expeditiously as possible.

35. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. Consequently, the connected MP is
closed. No costs.
[S.K.A.,J] [K.K.S., J.]
23.01.2014
Index: Yes
Internet: Yes
Tr/
Note:
Issue order today
SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J
and
K.K.SASIDHARAN, J
Tr
To
1. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU
REP. BY ITS SECY TO GOVERNMENT
HIGHWAYS DEPT.
FORT ST. GEORGE
CHENNAI 600 009.
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (GENERAL)
HIGHWAYS DEPT.
CHENNAI 600 005.
3. THE COMMISSIONER
CORPORATION OF CHENNAI
RIPPON BUILDINGS
CHENNAI 600 003.
4. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
EGMORE, CHENNAI - 600 008.
Pre-delivery order in
W.P.No.22516 of 2006
23.01.2014

P.n. srinivasan (deceased)_vs_the_state_of_tamil_nadu_on_23_january,_2014

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from S.Ezhil Raj

More from S.Ezhil Raj (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

P.n. srinivasan (deceased)_vs_the_state_of_tamil_nadu_on_23_january,_2014