K.R. Ramaswamy @ Traffic Ramaswamy & Ors. v. State rep. by The Home Secretary Tamil Nadu Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009 & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRSDATED : 30.4.2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRAANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. HARIPARANTHAMANWRIT PETITION NO.41822 OF 2006and connected Miscellaneous Petitions 1. K.R. Ramaswamy @ Traffic Ramaswamy... Party-in-Person2. P. Vadivelu ... Petitioner (Impleaded as per Order in M.P.No.1/08 in W.P.No.41822/06 dated 1.7.2008)Vs.1. State rep. by The Home Secretary Tamil Nadu Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.2. The Secretary Municipal Administration Tamil Nadu Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.3. The Secretary Transport Department Government of Tamil Nadu Chennai – 600 009.4. The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.5. The Commissioner of Corporation Chennai City Rippon Building Chennai – 600 003.6. The Joint Commissioner of Police Traffic, Chennai City Vepery, Chennai – 600 007. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

7. The Secretary Housing & Urban Developing Department Chennai.8. The Member Secretary Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority No.i, Gandhi Irwin Road Egmore, Chennai – 8.9. The President Tamil Nadu Isphat Parishad Ltd., No.9, Sembudoss Street, 1st Floor Chennai – 1.10. The President The South India Iron & Hardware Merchants Association, No.54, Sembudoss Street II Floor, Chennai – 1.11. The President Steel Tube Dealers Association No.29, Sembudoss Street Chennai – 1.12. The President Tool & Alloys Steel (Dealers) Association C/o. Sunil Enterprises, Nos.38 & 39, Coromondal Towers, SIDCO Industrial Estate Ambattur, Chennai – 98.... Respondents2nd petitioner was impleaded as per CourtOrder dated 01.07.2008 in M.P.No.1/2008R7 & R8 were impleaded as per Order of the Court dated 02.11.2006R9 to R12 were impleaded as per Suo Motu Court Order dated 28.2.2008 in W.P.No.41822 /2006Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing therespondents to shift the Iron and Steel market godowns and salesshops from G.T. Residential area to Sathankadu as per the earlierproposal to the allotted space for them at an early date, keepingin mind the safey of the general public and free flow of traffic inthe city of Chennai. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Petitioner No.1 : Mr. K.R. Ramaswamy @ Traffic Ramaswamy – Party-in- PersonFor Petitioner No.2 : Mr. K. RamasundaramFor R1 to R4 & R6 : Mr. G. Desingu, Spl.G.P.For R5 : Mr. V. BharathidasanFor R7 : Mr. R. GirirajanFor R8 : Mr. I. ParanthamanFor R9 to R11 : Mr. Sathish Parasaran O R D E R(Order of the Court was made by P.K. Misra, J.)Heard all the counsel appearing for the parties.2.This case clearly indicates the lackadaisical attitude shownby all concerned in implementing the Government Order inG.O.Ms.No.62, Housing and Urban Development (UD III (1) Department,dated 23.02.1999 that set the deadline as 28.02.1999 for shiftingthe wholesale trading of Iron and Steel goods from George Town areato Sathangadu. Now, 10 years have gone. Unfortunately, the thingsmoved only at snail's pace forcing this Court to issue severaldirections from time to time for personal appearances of officersconcerned and for filing of status reports. Considering the natureof grievance of the people living in the George Town area, which isa residential area, i.e. residents in the George Town residentialarea suffer sleepless nights due to loading and unloading of Ironand Steel materials and allied industrial activities such aswelding etc., in view of the carrying on of the wholesale trade inIron and Steel materials, as the matter involves Article 21 of theConstitution, this Court took an activist approach in publicinterest and issued several directions as detailed herein belowwhich this Court would not do in normal circumstances. 3.The Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly enacted the Tamil NaduAct 24 of 1996 namely, the Tamil Nadu Specified Commodities Markets(Regulation of Location) Act, 1996. The object of the Act is toregulate the location of market areas of wholesale markets inrespect of specified commodities in Madras Metropolitan area,taking into account the fast growth of population and commercialactivities, the congestion and consequential traffic, accommodationand other problems in Madras Metropolitan area. The above said https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ statue was enacted to shift as many commercial activities aspossible to other areas to decongest the affected areas in thepublic interest. 4.In order to achieve the aforesaid objective, market areasare declared under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Act 24 of 1996 forthe wholesale trade of the specified commodities and the wholesaletrade of the specified commodities should confine to those marketareas alone and the Metropolitan city is thus decongested. 5.The aforementioned G.O.Ms.No.62 dated 23.02.1999 is one suchNotification issued under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Act 24 of1996 declaring “Sathangadu Iron and Steel Market Area” to be themarket area for Chennai Metropolitan area in respect of iron andsteel materials, which is one of the specified commodities underthe schedule to the Act as defined in Section 2(13) of the Act. 6.In fact, according to the said Government Order, earlier itwas notified that the shifting of the wholesale trade in iron andsteels to the new market area was with effect from 01.03.1998.However, considering the request made from the trading communitiesinvolved in the wholesale trade in iron and steel, the dead linewas extended from 01.03.1998 to 28.02.1999 by the aforesaidGovernment Order. 7.The first petitioner herein moved the Public InterestLitigation, for a direction to shift the iron and steel marketgodowns from George Town residential area to Sathangadu as per theGovernment Order, since the wholesale trade in iron and steel iscarried on in the George Town for years together even after theaforesaid Government Order. 8.The second petitioner was impleaded by an order dated01.07.2008 as he is a permanent resident of the George Town areaand he made a grievance that he was seriously affected due to thecarrying on of the wholesale trade in iron and steel in the areaaffecting his normal life. 9.Respondent 7, Housing and Urban Development Department andrespondent 8, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (in shortCMDA) were impleaded by order dated 02.11.2006 and 22.02.2007respectively. Respondents 9 to 12, the Associations of WholesaleTraders in Iron and Steel, were impleaded suo motu by this Court on28.02.2008. 10.As per the counter affidavit of CMDA, the CMDA developediron and steel market area at Sathangadu villae in an extent of 203acres. It is further stated that 35.51 acres were allotted toSteel Authority of India Ltd., (SAIL) and 13.21 acres were allottedto Vishakapatnam Steel Plant besides developing 850 plots ofvarying size from one ground to three grounds for the traders and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 629 plots out of those plots were allotted to the traders.Paragraph No.6 of the counter affidavit filed by the CMDA, which isrelevant, is extracted here-under:“6.This respondent submits that the Governmentin G.O.Ms.No.62, Housing and Urban DevelopmentDepartment, dated 23.2.99 issued orders underSection 4(1) of Tamil Nadu Specified CommoditiesAct, 1996 declaring the Iron and Steel Market atSathangadu as “Market Area” for wholesale trade inIron and Steel goods with effect from 1.3.99 and thesame was published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazetteunder Part II Section – 2,, dated 1.3.1999. TheCorporation of Chennai and Commercial Tax Departmentwere requested not to issue fresh licenses andrefuse the renewal of licenses to the Iron and SteelTraders in George Town Area. The Joint Commissionerof Police (Traffic) was requested to stop all heavyvehicle movements in George Town area. In thisregard, a meeting was also convened on 24.3.1999 atCMDA with the Iron and Steel Traders Association.The Deputy Commissioner of Police and RevenueOfficer of the Chennai Corporation attended themeeting. The traders were informed on thenotification of declaring the Iron and Steel Market,Sathangadu as market area for the Iron and Steeltrade and requested to construct the building andstart the business at the new market. The DeputyCommissioner of Police (Traffic) assured to provideall the assistances and support in enforcingprohibition of lorry movement in George Town area.The Chennai Corporation officials informed thatChennai Corporation is not issuing trade license forthe Iron and Steel business as it does not requirelicense under Municipal Corporation Act”.11.Though it was stated by the CMDA in their counter affidavitas stated above that the Corporation of Chennai and Commercial TaxDepartment were requested not to issue fresh licenses and to refusethe renewal of licenses to iron and steel traders in George TownArea and the Joint Commissioner of Police (Traffic) was requestedto stop all the heavy vehicles movement in George Town area, thewholesale trade merrily continued in the George Town area.12.In the said circumstances, since two years were over afterfiling of the writ petition, this Court on 09.06.2008 directed CMDAto file status report. Accordingly, the CMDA filed a status reportdated 23.06.2008.13.Since the status report filed by the CMDA showed noprogress in shifting of the wholesale trade in Iron and Steel to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sathangadu Market Area, this Court was forced to pass the followingorder on 14.07.2008 so as to issue positive direction to implementthe Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.62 dated 23.02.1999. “we feel that in order to expedite the entireprocess, it would be better if all the officersconcerned remain present in Court so that the acuteand chronic problem can be sorted out.Accordingly, respondents 1 to 5, 7 herein, theAdditional Commissioner (Traffic), Chennai and theDeputy Commissioner (Traffic)-North shall bepresent in Court on 18.7.2008 at 2.30 pm.”14.The concerned officers were present on 18.07.2008 pursuantto the order of this Court. In the presence of all the officersconcerned, as the matter involves public interest, this Court on18.07.2008 issued the following positive direction that theshifting should be completed before 31.03.2009. "1.Pursuant to the earlier direction of thisCourt dated 14.7.2008, all the officers concernedare present.2.The office bearers of the variousassociations along with their advocates are alsopresent.3.We have heard the petitioner No.1 in person,the learned counsel appearing for the petitionerNo.2 and the learned counsels appearing for all therespondents. We have also heard the officers whoare present.4.It is tentatively decided that the process ofshifting iron and steel market should be completedat least by 31st March, 2009.5.The learned counsel appearing for theassociation submitted that some infrastructure isnot available. The Officers present, stated thatsuch infrastructures should be made available withina period of three to four months.6.The State shall take steps for obtainingplanning permission, for which the learned counselfor the CMDA states that as and when theapplications filed, such applications shall beproceeded as expeditiously as possible. 7.In course of hearing, we are convinced thatat times the materials are stored on the road and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ heavy vehicles are entering, which obviously causeobstruction to the free flow of traffic. 8.It would be the duty of the police officer toensure that there is no hindrance to the free flowof traffic and if there is any irregular movementsof heavy vehicles, such movements should becontrolled. 9.One of the grievances of the petitioner isthat the activities such as cutting and welding ofthe iron goods took place in the open, therebycausing health hazardous, the learned counsel forthe association submitted that necessary steps wouldbe taken by the association to prevent any suchillegal welding or cutting and also storing ofmaterials on road. 10.The learned counsel for the association alsoexpressed apprehension regarding lack of security insafeguarding the iron and steel market. TheCommissioner of Police, Chennai South and the HomeSecretary, who are present assured that necessarysecurity arrangements in the place will bestrengthened in accordance with the requirements. 11.The traffic police would monitor thequestion of free flow of traffic and prevent anyunnecessary congestion on account of movement oflorries in violation of the Rules and Regulations.12.The matter shall be listed on 28.11.2008 forfurther orders and for filing status report. Theofficers need not be present on that day". 15.This Court had stated in categorical terms that the processof shifting of iron and steel market should be completed “at least”by 31.03.2009 and the matter was posted to 28.11.2008 for furtherorders and for filing status report. 16.Accordingly, the CMDA filed a status report dated27.11.2008. This Court, thus monitored the whole issue and directedthe CMDA to file status report periodically. 17.Since the petitioners complained that the order dated18.07.2008 was not properly implemented, this Court passed an orderdated 12.12.2008 directing the sixth respondent and the MemberSecretary, CMDA, to be present on 17.12.2008. 18.The concerned respondents were present on 17.12.2008 andthey produced certain records pleading that there were progress in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the matter. The same was recorded by this Court as follows: “Pursuant to the order dated 12.12.2008,Respondents 6 and 8 are present. They haveproduced certain records indicating initiation ofcertain proceedings..................”19.In the meantime, the matter was listed on various dates andthere was no significant progress. 20.Hence, this Court on 03.04.2009, considering the statusreport dated 02.04.2009 of the CMDA passed the following order:"1.This petition has been filed by respondents9 to 11 for extension of time to comply with theorder dated 18.07.2008 passed by this Court inW.P.No.41822 of 2006.2.The 8th respondent – C.M.D.A. has filed astatus report. We are very sorry to record that allthe official respondents have been very tardy inimplementing the earlier direction of this Court,which was passed on the basis of Government Orderissued by such official respondents.3.Since sincere efforts have not been made bythe official respondents to implement the GovernmentOrder based upon which earlier orders have beenpassed by this Court even though more than a yearhas lapsed in the meantime, prima facie, it isapparent that the orders of this Court have not beencomplied with and therefore, it is a fit case whereultimately contempt proceedings should be initiated.However, we feel it appropriate to give last chanceto the official respondents to furnish status reportrelating to further action.4.This matter shall be listed on 20th April2009. The petitioners in the writ petition may filetheir counter in the meantime. The question as towhether any contempt proceedings should be initiatedor not shall be decided on 20th April, 2009. In themeantime, sufficient police protection should begiven to both the writ petitioners".21.This Court was pained to note that the order dated18.07.2008 of this Court was observed more in breach as the processof shifting the wholesale trade in iron and steel to Sathangadu wasto be completed at least before 31.03.2009 as per the said orderand the same was not complied with. However, the matter wasadjourned giving last chance to the official respondents to furnish https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ a status report relating to further action. 22.The activist approach of this Court brought the desiredresult as the learned Special Government Pleader, on 29.04.2009,stated that draft notification on the issue is pending before theSecretary concerned. Therefore, this Court directed on 29.04.2009to the Secretary concerned, with whom notification is pending shallremain present on 30.04.2009 to explain as to what action had beentaken. 23.Accordingly, the learned Additional Law Secretary ispresent today and he states that even though the draftnotifications are ready, some time may be required to complete allthe technicalities. It is stated that now the infrastructurefacilities such as road, electrical work, administrative building,amenity building, auto workshop and lorry parking, telephoneexchange, police station, petrol bunk, water supply, storm waterdrains, sewerage connection, public convenience, weigh bridge etc.,were provided and only some time is required to complete thetechnicalities to issue the final notification. This is also theopinion expressed by Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Additional AdvocateGeneral, who is appearing for the CMDA. 24.A petition for extension of time for six months i.e. Upto30.09.2009 for shifting the wholesale trade in Iron and Steel fromGeorge Town area has been filed on behalf of respondents 9 to 11.The petitioners, who are espousing the cause of the localresidents, opposed any extension of time stating that under somepretext or the other, the matter is being delayed and it is nowmore than a decade has expired after the issuance of theG.O.Ms.No.62 setting deadline for shifting at 28.02.1999. Since adecade is over, the petitioners states that there is no reason togrant further extension of time as sought by the wholesale traders.It is also pointed out that the Additional Law Secretary who ispresent in the Court today pleads only for some time to completethe technicalities alone pointing out all the substantial workswere completed for market area and therefore, no further time needbe given. 25.Having regard to all these aspects, we dispose of the writpetition with the positive direction that all steps shall be takento shift the iron and steel market on or before 15th June 2009. Itis also made clear that any transgression of this direction, wouldobviously result in initiation of proceedings under the Contempt ofCourts Act. This order is passed in the presence of the concernedofficers, so that the authorities concerned must start takingappropriate action, without waiting for service of the formalorder, which may be issued later. 26.The police protection extended to the petitioners shallcontinue till the end of June, 2009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

27.With the above observations and directions, the writpetition is disposed of. Consequently, connected MiscellaneousPetitions are closed. No costs. Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrarkb/TKTo1. The Home Secretary Government of Tamil Nadu Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.2. The Secretary Government of Tamil Nadu Municipal Administration Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.3. The Secretary Transport Department Government of Tamil Nadu Chennai – 600 009.4. The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.5. The Commissioner of Corporation Chennai City Rippon Building Chennai – 600 003.6. The Joint Commissioner of Police Traffic, Chennai City Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.7. The Secretary Housing & Urban Developing Department Chennai. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

8. The Member Secretary Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority No.i, Gandhi Irwin Road Egmore, Chennai – 8.2 CC To Mr.K. Ramasundaram, Advocate, SR NO.193971 CC To Mr.V. Bharathidasan, Advocate, SR NO.196941 CC to the Government Pleader, SR NO.281843 CC To Mr.Sathish Parasaran, Advocate, SR NO.19349 W.P.No.41822 of 2006vs(co)pmk/12.5.2009.