Dismissed

S.Sathia Chandran, Advocate v. State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC28 Jun 2016WP/20227/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to restrain State authorities from deleting Royapuram Railway Station from the heritage list. The Court noted existing protection under a Notification, suggested preservation is possible during expansion, and closed the petition without costs. Consequently, a connected miscellaneous petition was also closed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was closed; conclusion to forbid deletion was not formally granted but the matter was disposed of as closed.

S.Sathia Chandran, Advocate Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 28.06.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

The Hon'ble MR.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

The Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN

¶7

W.P.No.20227 of 2013
and
M.P.No.1 of 2013
S.Sathia Chandran .. Petitioner-in
Person
-vs-
1.State of Tamilnadu,
rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Housing and Urban Development Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2.Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority,
Thalamuthu Nadarjan Maaligai,
Gandhi Irwin Road,
Egmore, Chennai-600 008.
3.The Heritage Conservation Committee,
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority,
Egmore, Chennai-600 008.
4.The General Manager,
Southern Railways,
Park Town,
Chennai-600 003. .. Respondents

¶8

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents 1 to 3 from deleting the Royapuram Railway Station, Chennai from the list of heritage buildings in phase-I prepared by the respondents 2 and 3.

¶9

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶10

For Petitioner

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sathia Chandran Party-in-person For Respondents : Mr.STS.Moorthy Government Pleader assisted by Mr.V.Shanmugasundar Govt. Advocate for R1 Mr.K.Rajasrinivas for R2 & R3 Mr.P.T.Ramkumar for R4

¶12

- - - - ORDER (Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble Chief Justice) The petitioner seeks to forbear the first three respondents being the State authorities, from deleting Royapuram Railway Station, Chennai from the list of heritage buildings in Phase-I. 2. In so far as this issue is concerned, at present the building stands enlisted at Serial No.16 in the list of heritage buildings as per the Notification already issued. Thus, there is a protection to the building. As to what would happen in future, we cannot guess. But suffice to say that there is a mandate prohibitory against the Railways at present. We may suggest that if the Railways want to expand the station, such expansion is always possible even while preserving the heritage portion. 3. The writ petition is accordingly closed. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2013 is also closed.

¶13

-s/dAssistant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶14

bbr

¶15

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶16

¶17

1.The Secretary to Government,
Housing and Urban Development Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority,
Thalamuthu Nadarjan Maaligai,
Gandhi Irwin Road,
Egmore, Chennai-600 008.
3.The Heritage Conservation Committee,
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority,
Egmore, Chennai-600 008.
4.The General Manager,
Southern Railways,
Park Town,
Chennai-600 003.
+1 cc to M/s.K.Raja Shrinivas Advocates r.36009
+1 cc to M/.S.Sathia Chandran Advocate sr.36058
+1 cc to M/s.P.T.Ramkumar Advocate sr.36098
+1 cc to the Government Pleader sr.36147
W.P.No.20227 of 2013
aa22/07/2016

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

S.Sathia Chandran, Advocate v. State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Sathia Chandran, Advocate v. State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Suresh Vs the Commissioner

V.Sekar, Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu

P.Pugalenthi, Vs State of Tamil Nadu

V.Gopalakrishnan Vs Secretary to Government

M.v.Ramani Vs the State of Tamilnadu

A.K.Palanisamy Vs the Commissioner