High Court · 2025

W.P.(MD)No.2864 of 2022BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:23.01.2025CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANW.P.(MD)No.2864 of 2022Samikkannu ... Petitioner/Vs./1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.2. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Fort St. George, State Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.3. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Fort St. George, State Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.4. The District Collector O/o.The District Collector, Thanjavur District.5. The Director General of Police, Post Box No.601, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004.1/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.2864 of 20226. The Inspector General of Police, Central Zone, Trichy - 621 004.7. The Superintendent of Police O/o.The Superintendent of Police, Orathanadu Division, Thanjavur District.8. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, O/o. the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Orathanadu Division, Thanjavur District.9. The Tahsildar Orathanadu Taluk, Thanjavur District.10. The Block Development Officer Thiruvonam, Orathanadu Taluk, Thanjavur District.11. The Village Administrative Officer, Kavallipatti, Orathanadu Taluk, Thanjavur District.12. The Inspector of Police Thiruvonam Police Station, Thanjavur District. ... RespondentsP RAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of mandamus, to direct the respondents to take action against the officials, who are responsible for the death of the petitioner's wife by name Vijayarani and direct the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner's family members for the death of the petitioner's wife by the negligent of the respondents within the time stipulated by this Court.2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.2864 of 2022For Petitioner : Mr.R.Alagumani For Respondents: Mr.D.GandhiRaj Special Government Pleader for R1-4 & 9-11: Mrs.M.Aasha, Government Advocate (Crl.side) for R5-8 & 12 ORDERThis writ petition has been filed for a direction, directing the respondents to take action against the officials, who are responsible for the death of the petitioner's wife, viz., Vijayarani and also for compensation to the petitioner's family members for the death of the petitioner's wife, due to the negligence on the part of the respondents.2. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.3. The petitioner got married one Vijayarani. The petitioner is a physically challenged person. While being so, on 27.04.2021, the petitioner's wife went to her brother's house, to attend 8th day of death 3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.2864 of 2022ceremony and while returning back to home along with another relative in a two wheeler at about, 02.00 p.m., near Mettupatti bus stop, Orathanadu Taluk, Thanjavur District, one Muthuveerappan condolence flex banner erected on the roadside, unfortunately, the said flex board fell on the petitioner's wife and she sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, she was taken to Thanjavur Medical College Hospital and she died on 28.04.2021 in the Hospital. 4. On the complaint, F.I.R was registered as against the said Ravichandhiran, S/o.Muthuveerappan in Crime No.113 of 2021 under Section 337 I.P.C and Sections 4A(1b) and 4B of the Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1959. After completion of investigation, filed a final report and it is taken cognizance by the trial Court. The accused is facing the trial. The petitioner submitted representation seeking compensation on the ground that the fourth respondent ought to have taken appropriate action, while erecting the flex board, without any permission or licence. Therefore, the flex board fell down and his wife died and the respondents 1 to 4 are liable to pay compensation. 4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.2864 of 20225. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the procedure laid down in the Tamil Nadu Local Bodies (Permission for Erection of Digital Banners and Placards) Rules, 2011, in which, Rule 7 says about unauthorised, obscene or objectionable digital banners or placards, accordingly, the District Collector may confiscate or summarily remove any digital banners or placards erected without permission, and recover the cost of removal from the person who has erected them. Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Local Bodies (Permission for Erection of Digital Banners and Placards) Rules, 2011, says about inspection of digital banners or placards, the District Collector or any officer authorised by him in this behalf shall make inspection of the digital banners or placards erected and verify whether they are erected in accordance with the conditions specified in the permission order, the provisions of the Act and these Rules. 6. imilarly, the learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.29330 of 2019, by the order dated 06.01.2020, in which the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, ordered interim compensation of 5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.2864 of 2022Rs.5,00,000/- by the Corporation of Chennai, further, disciplinary proceedings was also initiated as against the erred officials.7. In the case on hand, admittedly, one Ravichandhiran, erected flex banner to indicate the demise of his father Muthuveerappan, adjacent to the road, near Mettupatti bus stop, Orathanadu Taluk, Thanjavur District. While the petitioner's wife was travelling in a two wheeler along with another person, unfortunately, due to heavy wind, the flex board fell down on her and sustained grievous injuries. Though she was taken to hospital, she succumbed to the injuries. 8. It is true that the fourth respondent is the competent authority under Rule 7 of the Tamil Nadu Local Bodies (Permission for Erection of Digital Banners and Placards) Rules, 2011, to confiscate or summarily remove any digital banners or placards erected without permission, and recover the cost of removal from the person who has erected it. The said flex board was not erected as permanent in nature. Immediately, after the demise of one Muthuveerappan, his son, viz., Ravichandhiran erected the flex board, thereby, indicated that his father died under the caption 6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.2864 of 2022“fz;zPh; mQ;ryp”. Therefore, it was erected all of sudden and without obtaining any permission or licence from the competent authority, viz., the fourth respondent herein. The said Muthuveerappan died on 27.04.2021 and after his demise, flex board was erected by his son. Therefore, there was no possibility for the fourth respondent to conduct inspection. The said flex board was erected only indicate the demise of one Muthuveerappan and it was not permanent structure and it was not erected for any commercial purpose. However, the person erected flex board, now he is facing the trial for the charges under Section 337 I.P.C and Sections 4A(1b) and 4B of the Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1959. Therefore, it cannot be stated that on the negligence of the fourth respondent, the incident was happened, due to which, the petitioner's wife died.9. Hence, this Court concluded that there is no negligence on the part of the fourth respondent and as such, the respondents are not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. However, considering the above facts and circumstances, this Court felt some ex-gratia amount can be paid to the petitioner towards the demise of his wife as compensation. 7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.2864 of 202210. Accordingly, the third respondent is directed to disburse a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) as ex-gratia amount from the Chief Minister's Relief Fund to the petitioner within a period two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.11. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. The petitioner is at liberty to seek compensation as against the accused in the manner known to law, if so advised. No costs. 23.01.2025Index :Yes / No NCC :Yes / NoLSTO:-1. The Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.2. The Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Fort St. George, State Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.2864 of 20223. The Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Fort St. George, State Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.4. The District Collector O/o.The District Collector, Thanjavur District.5. The Director General of Police, Post Box No.601, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004.6. The Inspector General of Police, Central Zone, Trichy - 621 004.7. The Superintendent of Police O/o.The Superintendent of Police, Orathanadu Division, Thanjavur District.8. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, O/o. the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Orathanadu Division, Thanjavur District.9. The Tahsildar Orathanadu Taluk, Thanjavur District.10. The Block Development Officer Thiruvonam, Orathanadu Taluk, Thanjavur District.11. The Village Administrative Officer, Kavallipatti, Orathanadu Taluk, Thanjavur District.12. The Inspector of Police Thiruvonam Police Station, Thanjavur District. 9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.2864 of 2022G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN , J. LSOrder made inW.P.(MD)No.2864 of 2022Dated:23.01.202510/10