Madras High Court: In a writ petition filed by the wife of K. Armstrong who is a State President of Bahujan Samaj Party, for directing the Zonal Officer to permit her to bury the body of her husband K. Armstrong to raise tomb or samathi on the said buildings to do last rights of the departed leader by his followers, V. Bhavani Subbaroyan, J. has permitted the burial to be held at a private property in Pothur Village in Thiruvallur district in Tamil Nadu, and has passed the following directions:
-
The petitioner was permitted to approach the Government by submitting a representation with supporting documents along with necessary proposal to the Government if she intends to construct a memorial / manimandapam, hospital, school etc., in the land owned by them, in the name of the deceased K. Armstrong in and around Chennai, and the same was directed to be considered by the Government by passing appropriate orders in accordance with law in future.
-
All the persons concerned who are related to this issue can co-operate with the Government in continuing the procession in a peaceful manner. The Police Department was directed to give appropriate police protection for the said procession, which is about 20 kms from the said place to the burial place.
Background:
The petitioner’s husband dedicated his whole life for the benefit of Dalit and Marginalised People of Tamil Nadu and nearby State like Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Kerala. He was the President of Bahujan Samaj Party over 17 years. He was murdered by Anti- Social rowdy elements on 05-07-2024. Thus, the followers of the departed leaders have become restive, they wanted to see the leader to be buried inside BSP Office and memorial would be built on the said place to show their respect to the departed leader in and around the area. The Dalits requested to have tomb on the body inside her husband’s BSP office.
The petitioner submitted a representation dated 06-07-2024 praying to permit her to bury the body of K. Armstrong inside the BSP office and the same has been rejected by the Commissioner. Hence, this writ petition was filed.
Analysis and Decision:
After perusing the Commissioner’s report, the Court noted that the petitioner’s request was rejected on the ground that area for which the permission has been sought is a thickly populated contiguous residential area with high population density and is a primarily a residential zone, the approach road is 16 feet wide which is very narrow, the primary construction itself is about 1900 square feet and it is seen that additionally a part area is covered by a proper roof and does not have requisite approvals, the location sought is currently functioning as the party office of the Bahujan Samaj Party.
After examining whether there is any other vast space owned by the petitioner is available or the petitioner is agreeable to construct a manimandapam in the place shown by the Chennai corporation to perform last rites to her husband , the Court was not convinced for burying the deceased in the alternative place owned by the kin of the deceased, , because it is not known whether the neighbors / residents would accept or object the same.
The Court opined that only when the land stated by the petitioner feasibly falls within the parameters fixed by the Court, the said place can be allotted for burial.
The Court suggested that they can bury the body in the allotted land at present and later, if the said land which has been purchased has been approved, they can shift the body in the said land for burial.
The Court also advised the petitioner to approach the Government with a fresh application seeking permission for the new place, which they have found for burying the body.
The Court noted that some family relative of the deceased showed willingness to offer one acre of land at Tiruvallur and prima facie it appears that the said land is feasible to bury the body of the deceased.
The Court said that as the Government has issued appropriate sanction for converting the said land into the place for burial, which is in accordance with law and mortal will be laid in rest in the said place.
The petitioner further prayed that in case if they are getting a place in Chennai limit, they may be permitted to raise memorial such as hospital, educational institution etc, to which the Court allowed the petitioner to approach the Government by submitting a representation with supporting documents along with necessary proposal to the Government.
[Porkodi v. State, 2024 SCC OnLine Mad 3017, decided on 07-07-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner : R.Sankarasubbu
For Respondents : Additional Advocate General J.Ravindran, State Government Pleader Edwin Prabhakar, Special Government Pleader Dr.J.Seenivasan , Additional Public Prosecutor
Muniyapparaj, Additional Government Pleader C. Meera Arumugam, Additional Government Pleader P.Gurunathan, Government Advocate Azizulla Khan, Government Advocate Habeeb Rahman. Standing Counsel E.C.Ramesh
