Madhya Pradesh High Court Orders Removal Of All Illegal Statues Erected At Public Places, Imposes ₹30K Cost On State

The division bench of Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav was essentially dealing with a PIL filed by a lawyer raising the public cause against erection of a 10 feet tall statue of a former Chief Minister at a busy tr-junction in Bhopal.

The Petitioner submitted before the Court that beside the said statue being an obstruction to the free-flow of traffic, its erection was in violation of the Apex Court order in Union of India v. State of Gujarat & Ors., passed on 18.01.2013. On the basis of the aforesaid public cause, he sought for removal of the said statue and for a generic direction to also remove all statues and structures erected on or off the road, which were causing traffic hazard, anywhere in the State.

The State on the other hand alleged that the PIL was a publicity stunt, and that the Petitioner being a resident of Jabalpur had no locus standi to complain against a statute at Bhopal. It further submitted that it had not received any complaints regarding the said statue obstructing traffic in anyway.

Later, the State changed its position and expressed willingness to abide by the Apex Court's order. It also submitted the reply of the Police authorities informing the Government that due to increase in the flow of traffic at the said tri-junction, erection of statue would cause obstruction to free-flow of traffic.

Considering the changing stance of the State, the Court opined that it was not acting in accordance with law but was acting to serve an ulterior motive. It labelled the case as a burning example of shifting stands taken by the State -

The functionaries of the State including the Municipal Corporation which is an instrumentality of the State is obliged to act in accordance with the constitutional provisions and that of M.P. Municipal Corporation Act 1956. The decisions or recommendations of functionaries of the State including Municipal Corporation, Bhopal should sub-serve the law and not any personal or political interest.

The Court did not appreciate the State questioning the intentions of the Petitioner, who was also a practicing Advocate-

It is further unfortunate to note that a cause raised by a Practising Lawyer which appears to be a genuine public cause, has been categorized as motivated and serving some oblique motive. It is not necessary for the functionaries of the State to oppose every petition that is filed against them. The State has to act in a fair manner. If a genuine public cause is raised by a person coming to the Court, the State and its functionaries should be the first to accept their mistakes and take corrective steps in furtherance of its ultimate object of serving the public at large in accordance with law. In fact, petitioner herein is raising a cause arising out of unlawful action of the State and its instrumentality. The State and its instrumentality should not treat such genuine PILs as adversarial litigation.

Scrutinizing the photographs/maps on record, the Court noted that it was obvious from the location that it was not meant for installation of statue. More so, the bench further opined, for safe and secure movement of traffic and pedestrians, the triangles/circulatory at a tri-junction ought to be kept vacant and unobstructed to avoid the dangers of accidents caused by obstruction (because of the statue) of field of vision of pedestrians and drivers. With the said observations the Court held that the said statue deserved to be removed-

This Court thus has no manner of doubt that statue of Late Shri Arjun Singh, the former Chief Minister of the State has been established in gross violation of decision of Apex Court passed on 18.01.2013 in SLP (C) 8519/2006 (Union of India VS. State of Gujrat and others), and therefore, deserves to be immediately removed.

Examining the restraining order passed by the Apex Court, the Court held that the said matter was still pending and therefore, the respective order of the Supreme Court continues to bind the State Government-

Perusal of Writ Petition No.18051/2018 (PIL) registered after receipt of record from the Apex Court reveals that the said PIL continues to be pending in this Court till date. Though the said Writ Petition No.18051/2018 (PIL) relates to religious constructions made on government/public land reserved for public use, but the interim restraint orders passed by the Apex Court in respect of statues also continue to hold good till date. Thus, the interim restraint against erection of statues at spaces reserved for public utility, imposed by the Apex Court continues to bind all State Government, instrumentalities of the State, local bodies etc.

Reprimanding the State for its changing positions, the Court noted that its shifting stands belied the claim of the State and the Corporation to be dispassionate litigants. It also observed that the State left no stone unturned to malign the reputation of the Petitioner, who instead, was doing what the State ought to have done.

With the aforesaid observations, the Court allowed the Petition by directing the State-

1. To remove the statue of the former Chief Minister erected at the tri-junction in Bhopal
2. To remove all statues erected on or after 18.01.2013, on public roads, pavements, sideways and any other public utility place at any village, town or city situated within the State of M.P.
3. To not install any statue on public roads, pavements, sideways and any other public utility place situated in any village, town or city within the State of M.P.

Moreover, the Court held that the Petitioner was entitled to cost of litigation and accordingly, it imposed a cost of Rs. 30,000 on the State-

(iv) Since the petitioner has brought a genuine public cause before this Court, he is entitled to cost of this litigation while respondents who have acted unlawfully and in an irresponsible manner defying the restraint order of the Apex Court, the respondents are liable to be saddled with exemplary cost.

(v) Thus, cost of Rs.30,000/- is imposed on the respondents No.1 to 4 to be paid in equal proportion by each one of them, out of which Rs.10,000/- shall be paid to petitioner by depositing the same in the bank account of petitioner through digital transfer within a period of 30 days from today, while the remaining Rs.20,000/- shall be deposited with the High Court Legal Aid Committee, Jabalpur, for wasting the precious time of this Court in dealing with this avoidable piece of litigation.

Case Title: GREESHM JAIN v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 60

Click Here To Read/Download Order