A petition was recently filed in Madras High Court which was about directing the Respondents to permit the Petitioners to install a statue of Dr. Ambedkar at Traffic Island at Light House Corner, Karur District. The court of law dismissed the same saying that court’s time is very precious and should not be wasted in trivial matters like this.
The court said, “It would be appreciated if the Court's time is not wasted like this and the Court is allowed to take up the other pressing matters instead.”
The matter was being heard by a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice R. Hemlatha. The bench observed "It is completely beyond the ordinary powers of a Court, even a constitutional Court, to direct the administration to install any particular Statue at any particular place."
Along with this, the court further observed, "It would be appreciated if the Court's time is not wasted like this and the Court is allowed to take up the other pressing matters instead."
There was another order in which a plea requested directions for restoring passenger rolling gates on the north-eastern and north-western side of an obstructing wall at the Karaikudi bus stand by the Respondents. In this matter some significant observations were made by the Madras High Court.
The court said that “it can hardly be expected of the High Court, no less, to look into the matters pertaining to ingress and egress at every bus stand all over the State.”
Along with this, the Court further went on to say, "The present trend, whether it is borne out of political ambitions or professional reasons, to approach the High Court with a complaint of an encroachment in tiniest part of a remote village or to deal with the access to a bus terminus or to consider the bus timings at a particular stop adds to the pendency of matters and impede the Court's function."
Therefore, the time of the court which can be put to better use by dealing with matters of public interest requiring urgent attention, gets wasted.
Lastly, the court said, “It is unfortunate that a degree of restraint that ought to be exercised at the Bar and the filter that ought to be carried out by the Bar may have been lost or surrendered its efficacy.”
On this note, both the petitions were dismissed by the court.
