1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 02.11.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.(MD)NO.1689 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 K.Pechimuthu .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Secretariat, Chennai. 2.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Chepauk, Chennai. 3.The Inspector General of Police, 601,Radhakrishnan Salai, Chennai-600 004. 4.The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar. 5.The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar. 6.The Municipal Commissioner, Rajapalayam Municipality, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District. 7.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District. .. Respondents This writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the notices F1/3773/09, dated 27.10.2009 and Na.Ka.No.F1/3773/2009, dated 31.12.2010 passed by the sixth respondent and quash the same and consequently forbear the respondents from preventing the petitioner and his family members from having ingress and egress to their house by car through the 'Boopalpatti Middle Street', Rajapalayam, by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 directing the respondents to remove the notice board placed at the eastern entrance of the said street. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Gnanasekaran For Respondents : Mr.K.M.Vijayakumar for R-6 Mr.TS.Md.Mohideen, AGP for RR1 to 5 and 7 ORDER The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to challenge the orders dated 27.10.2009 and 31.12.2010 issued by the sixth respondent, who is the Municipal Commissioner, Rajapalayam Municipality. The petitioner complained that these two orders should be set aside and the respondents should be forbeared from preventing the petitioner and his family members from having ingress and egress to their house by car through Boopalpatti Middle Street, Rajapalayam and to direct the respondents to remove the notice board placed at the eastern entrance of the said street. 2.Notice of motion was ordered on the writ petition on 14.2.2011. Pending the notice of motion, no interim orders were granted in the two interim applications filed by the petitioner. On notice from this court, the sixth respondent has filed a counter affidavit, dated 28.3.2011. 3.It is the second round of litigation by the petitioner. In the first round of litigation, the petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.4936 of 2009 claimed the very same relief. That writ petition was dismissed by this court on 14.08.2009 holding that the petitioner has not made out any case as the street mentioned by the petitioner cannot be used for motor cars. There was no illegality in the sixth respondent putting up the Board prohibiting entry for the vehicles. Not satisfied with the said order, the petitioner field a writ appeal being W.A.(MD)No.501 of 2009. In that writ appeal, a division bench by its order dated 30.09.2009 gave liberty to the petitioner to submit his representation and that the sixth respondent was directed to consider that representation. It is pursuant to the liberty given by the division bench, the petitioner sent a representation once again repeating that the road was having breadth of 13.2 feet on the Eastern side and 9.6 feet on the Western side. There is hardly any traffic. From the Eastern entry, the petitioner's house is only at a distance of 52 feet. 4.But, however, the sixth respondent by a detailed order, dated 27.10.2009 held that a stone put up in the entry of the Middle Street was removed. In the meeting held on 27.3.2008, the petitioner's son Kotteeswaran had participated. It was decided that while removing the stone in the middle street and also allowing the general public to set up speed brakes, insofar as https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 the notice board put up by the police and the municipality was concerned, it has been made clear no four wheelers except Ambulance can be allowed to enter into the street. In public interest and also considering the advice given by the Inspector of Police, Rajapalayam South, it was decided not to permit three wheelers and four wheelers into the street. Hence the demand of the petitioner cannot be accepted. The petitioner thereafter sent a representation once again to all authorities. By a further order, dated 31.12.2010 by the Municipality, the same conditions were reiterated. Hence the petitioner is once again before this court with the very same ground. 5.It is not as if the ingress and egress to the house has been denied. His request was that his car (four wheeler) has to be taken into his house and brought outside through the street. Such a demand can be considered only from the point of view of general public and in public interest. It has been rightly rejected taking note of these facts. Even though the petitioner pleaded about his old age and medical condition, in the notice board, it has been clearly stated that in case of emergency, an Ambulance can be allowed into the Street. It must be noted that there is no fundamental right for any person to have his car to be taken through a particular street if that street has been prohibited for entry into such street. The petitioner's private interest cannot be used to defeat the public interest set forth by the respondents. 6.It is stated by the sixth respondent in his counter affidavit that the street is a public street and that the breadth of the street is only 9.2 feet after deducting the width of the drain on both sides and the action was taken in public interest. In the meeting convened, the petitioner's son had participated. Hence there is no further case for the respondents to consider for removal of the board so as to allow free access of the petitioner's car. In the absence of any legal or enforceable right, this court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. Insofar as maintenance of any public street is concerned, it should be kept actually as a public street and that considering the permission to have the motor driven vehicles, it is entirely for the authorities to consider the same. The petitioner has not made out any case to take a different view. 7.Hence, the writ petition will stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 To 1.The Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Secretariat, Chennai. 2.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Chepauk, Chennai. 3.The Inspector General of Police, 601,Radhakrishnan Salai, Chennai-600 004. 4.The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar. 5.The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar. 6.The Municipal Commissioner, Rajapalayam Municipality, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District. 7.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District +One cc to Mr.D.Gnanasekaran, Advocate, SR.No.37754 +One CC to Mr.K.M.VIjayakumar, Advocate, SR.N.37744 +One CC to The Spl. Govt Pleader, SR.no.37803 vvk rl/11c – 15.11.2011 W.P.(MD)NO.1689 of 2011 02.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/