Dismissed¶28

P.Bhaskar v. The Commissioner

Madras HC30 Jan 2026WP/2067/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Temple land encroachment; writ of mandamus; Article 226; Greater Chennai Corporation; HR & CE Department; Executive Officer, Arulmighu Sri Karpagambal Samedha Sri Kailasanatha Temple, Vanagaram; representation dated 16.09.2025; vague allegations unsupported by pleading or material; petitioner left to satisfy authorities; dismissal without costs; Madras High Court; P.Bhaskar v. Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation; Manindra Mohan Shrivastava CJ and G.Arul Murugan J.

What did the court decide?

The allegation of encroachments around the temple on temple lands is not supported by any specific pleading or material; on such vague pleading, the Court is not inclined to pass any order. ¶28

P.Bhaskar Vs The Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

WP No.2067 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 30.01.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,

¶6

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN

WP No.2067 of 2026

P.Bhaskar

: Petitioner

versus

1.The Commissioner,

¶14

Greater Chennai Corporation, Rippon Building, Chennai

¶15

2.The Commissioner,

¶16

HR & CE Department

¶17

Uthamar Gandhi Salai,

¶18

Nungambakkam, Chennai 34

¶19

3.The Executive Officer, Arulmighu Sri Karpagambal Samedha Sri Kailasanatha Temple, Vanagaram, Chennai

¶20

: Respondents

¶21

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent No.1 namely the Commissioner, Grater Chennai Corporation, Rippon Buildings, (If necessary to do Physical measurement) to remove the Encroachment appurtenant to Arulmighu Sri Kailasanatha Temple, Vangaram, Chennai in accordance with law within a reasonable time frame based upon the petitioner’s representation dated 16.09.2025.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Jagannath

¶23

Page 1 of 4

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

WP No.2067 of 2026 For Respondents : Mr.S.Ravichandran, Additional Government Pleader, HR & CE, for respondents 2 and 3 Ms.S.Vanitha Joice Rani, Standing Counsel, for the first respondent

¶26

ORDER

¶27

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

¶28

Allegation made in the petition that there are encroachments around the temple on temple lands is not supported by any specific pleading or material. Therefore, on such vague pleading, we are not inclined to pass any order. It will, however, be open for the petitioner to satisfy the authorities if there is any encroachment. The petition stands dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

¶29

(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ.) (G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.) 30.01.2026 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No tar

¶30

Page 2 of 4

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

WP No.2067 of 2026

¶33

¶34