CHENNAI: The Madras high court has dismissed with cost of Rs 25,000, a public interest litigation which sought to restrain the Namakkal district collector and Superintendent of Police, Namakkal, from permitting a public meeting in the name of 2nd Ulaga Kongu Tamilar Manadu (2nd Kongu Tamilar meet) by Kongunadu Makkal Desiya Katchi (KMDK) on February 3 at Bommaikuttai Medu, Puthusathiram taluk, Namakkal district.
A division bench comprising Justices M. Sathyanarayanan and P. Rajamanickam dismissed the PIL filed by C. Saravanan and directed him to pay a cost of Rs 25,000 to the mediation centre of the high court.
According to the petitioner, one political party namely Kongunadu Makkal Desiya Katchi was holding a public meeting in the name of 2nd Ulaga Kongu Tamilar Manadu at Bommaikuttai Medu, Puthusathiram taluk. The place chosen to hold the meeting was only 15 metres away from the National Highways-44. The political party was planning to bring lakhs of people from various districts and it had invited native people living in abroad. If the meeting was held in that place, it would cause great hardship to the residents of the area and the free flow of traffic will be affected. It will also be a hindrance to the public traveling along the National Highways, he added.
Advocate V.P. Sengottuvel, appearing for Kongunadu Makkal Desiya Katchi submitted that the party was conducting the meeting in a private land which was 150 feet from the national highways. After obtaining necessary police permission, adequate arrangements have been made with separate car parking. Nearly 20,000 people will participate in the meeting. The organizers and participants will not cause any hindrance to the free flow of traffic. This was private interest litigation with a political motive, filed by a fringe group, who has indulged in several unlawful activities. This group also made an attempt to murder the organiser of the meeting E.R. Easwaran, Sengottuvel added.
Recording his submission, the bench said the petitioner has not come with clean hands to the court. He was also guilty of suppression of material facts. The litigant who seeks the aid of this court in the form of PIL was expected to state and disclose all material facts which the petitioner miserably failed to do so. The petitioner has wasted the precious judicial time of this court and disturbed the process of this court. Therefore, this petition was deemed to be dismissed with exemplary cost. In the result, the petition was dismissed with cost of '25,000, the bench added.
