The High Court of Madras dismissed a repetitive writ petition challenging temple construction. Noting a prior dismissal of a similar PIL on private dispute grounds, the Court found no fresh cause of action and rejected the petition as frivolous.
No direction to seal or demolish the construction. Petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED:06.12.2018
CORAM
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
Writ Petition No.4060 of 2018 & W.M.P.No.4988 of 2018
unauthorized and high handed construction of temple in premises bearing New No.19, (old No.10), Poosala Gengu Street, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008 comprised in O.S.No.1045, 1052 and R.S.No.690/2 (in Corporation Division No.61, Royapuram Zone V), constructed by the 5th respondent and pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit.
For Petitioner : No appearance For Respondents : Mr.V.C.Selvasekaran, Standing Counsel – R1 & R4 Mr.Thiruvengadam, Standing Counsel – R2 Mr.M.Karthikeyan, AGP – R3 Mr.V.Lakshmi Narayanan - R5
O R D E R
(Delivered by DR.VINEET KOTHARI,J)
None present for the petitioner even in second round.
'2.The stand placed before us by the learned counsel for respondent no.5 is that this temple is in existence for the last 21 years and now some renovation / construction work is going on. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the fifth respondent was not even in the picture at that stage and there was residential accommodation which was purchased much later by the fifth respondent in the year 2007. It is submitted that only thereafter, the residential building was demolished and the property
was sought to be re-constructed as a temple.
3.We are of the view that keeping in mind the nature of controversy and the allegations inter se the parties, it is not possible to determine them in a writ proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and that too in a public interest litigation. This is really in the nature of private dispute and it is only on evidence being led, would there be a clarity to the issue. Thus, it is in only civil proceedings that the rights and obligations of the parties can be determined.
4.Learned counsel for the petitioner states that there was an order of status quo to be maintained as on 25.04.2014 and since this petition is being disposed of, the consequence would be that the interim order would stand vacated. In our view, that would be the natural consequence, but it is trite to say that any construction to be made has to be made as per sanction. To that extent, the responsibility of the Corporation / Municipal authorities would be to see that construction should only be permitted as per any sanction plan. At this stage, learned counsel for respondent no.5 assures the Court that no demolition or construction would be done without sanction by the competent authority.
5.We, thus, close the petition with the aforesaid liberty to the petitioner. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2014 stands closed.'
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
sl
To
1. The Commissioner,
Corporation of Chennai,
Ripon Buildings,
Chennai – 600 003.
2. The Member Secretary,
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority,
No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore,
Chennai – 600 008.
3. The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai,
E.V.K.Sampath Salai,
Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.
4. The Asst. Commissioner cum Zonal Officer,
Royapuram Zone V, Corporation of Chennai,
62, Basin Bridge Road, Old Washermenpet,
Chennai – 600 021.
+1cc to Mr.V.Raghavachari, Advocate SR.No.83922
+1cc to Government Pleader SR.No.84411
Writ Petition No.4060 of 2018 & W.M.P.No.4988 of 2018
KJI(CO) GMY(08/01/2019)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a repetitive writ petition filed after a prior PIL dismissal requires a fresh cause of action.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Chennai Egmore Residents & Owners Welfare Association
Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai
Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority
Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai
Asst. Commissioner cum Zonal Officer, Royapuram Zone V
Sri Ayyappa Prarthana Mandir Samithi Trust
Vineet Kothari
Anita Sumanth
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
