Dismissed

G.Devarajan, v. The Special Officer/Principal

Madras HC29 Jan 2018WP/1433/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this PIL, the petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing authorities to reconstruct and repair a Chennai Corporation Community Centre to benefit residents who cannot afford private halls. The Court held it cannot direct construction or operation of such facilities as it is an executive function, but the authorities must ensure the building does not pose a risk to passers-by.

What did the court decide?

Direction to ensure the building is not in such a condition as to pose a risk to passers-by; rejection of prayer for reconstruction.

G.Devarajan, Vs The Special Officer/Principal — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 29.01.2018

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

The Hon'ble Ms.INDIRA BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

The Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶7

W.P. No.1433 of 2018
G.Devarajan .. Petitioner
-vs-
1.The Special Officer/Principal
Secretary, Chief Minister's
Special Cell, Govt. of Tamilnadu,
Chennai-9.
2.The Chennai Collector,
Chennai District Collector Office,
Chennai-1.
3.The Principal Secretary/Commissioner,
Greater Chennai Corporation,
Ripon Building, Chennai-3.
4.The Kolathur Constituency MLA,
Mr.M.K.Stalin, 37, Jawakar Nagar
Main Road, Chennai-82. .. Respondents

¶8

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the petitioner's representation in all seriousness, just and necessary in building renewal/streamlining/reconstruct the Chennai Corporation Community Centre at S.R.P.Koil Street (North), Near: Thiru.Vi.Ka.Nagar Bus Terminus so that it could be of immense help to the residents around area.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Devarajan Party-in-person For Respondents : Mr.E.Manoharan Addl.G.P. for RR 1 and 2 : Mr.V.C.Selvasekaran for R-3

¶10

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

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

(Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶13

This writ petition by way of public interest litigation has been filed seeking orders on the respondent authorities to reconstruction and/or to repair the Chennai Corporation Community Centre at S.R.P. Koil Street (North), near Thiru.Vi.Ka.Nagar Bus Terminus.

¶14

According to the petitioner, the Community Centre has been used by the people of the locality for many years for functions such as marriages. Materials necessary for small functions such as utensils have also been made available at the Community Centre free of cost. This has been of immense benefit to the lower and middle class people. The petitioner submits that there is no space available for holding functions. Few people can afford to rent private marriage halls and/or mandapams for their functions, as, such halls and/or mandapams charge exorbitant rent. It is stated in the petition that representations had been made to the M.L.A., Mr.M.K.Stalin, several times, but yielded no result.

¶15

A writ petition lies for enforcement of a constitutional right, a legal right or may be, even in certain exceptional circumstances, an equitable right. Traditionally, the Courts were approached by persons actually aggrieved. However, the emergence of public interest litigations has diluted the concept of locus standi. Any public spirited citizen can now approach the Court to draw the attention of the Court to prevalent illegality or to the breach of any right, be it a fundamental right or a constitutional right, a legal right or a basic human right. In all such cases, the Courts intervene irrespective of who has approached the Court. However, public interest litigation does not, in our view, enable the Writ Court to stretch it's hands out and encroach into the arena of executive and/or bureaucratic action. In a polity based on the principle of separation of powers, each Wing, be it the Judiciary, the Executive or the Legislature, has to confine itself to the limits of its powers and jurisdiction. It is reiterated that only if executive action or inaction results in contravention of any right, the Courts might interfere.

¶16

It is for the authorities to decide whether or not to run a Community Centre for holding functions. No citizen can claim any right to have such a Centre for holding functions. In our considered view, the intervention of the Writ Court is not warranted. However, the respondent authorities shall ensure that the condition of the building is not such as to cause a risk to passers-by and/or those who frequently use the building.

¶17

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

¶18

If the building is in such a dilapidated condition as to pose a risk, the building should either be strengthened or be demolished.

¶19

5.This order will not, however, prevent the people of the locality from making a representation to the respondent authorities and any representation made may be considered in accordance with law.

¶20

The writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS VII)

¶21

//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
sra
To
1.The Special Officer/Principal
Secretary, Chief Minister's
Special Cell, Govt. of Tamilnadu,
Chennai-9.
2.The Collector,
Chennai District Collector Office,
Chennai-1.
3.The Principal Secretary/Commissioner,
Greater Chennai Corporation,
Ripon Building, Chennai-3.
+1cc to Mr.G.Devarajan, Advocate Sr.No.6144
+1cc to Government Pleader SR.No.6581
sm:19.2.2018
W.P.No.1433 of 2018

¶22

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

G.Devarajan, v. The Special Officer/Principal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Devarajan, v. The Special Officer/Principal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suo-Motu Pil-Wp Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

V.Munikrishnan, S/o.Velu Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S Lason India Pvt. Ltd.

R.D.Rajavel, Advocate Vs The District Collector

V.K.Venkatachalam, Vs District Collector

T. Ashok Surana Vs The Presiding officer