Dismissed¶48

Viswanathan v. The Secretary to Government

Madras HC10 Jun 2026WP/21080/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras HC W.P. No.21080 of 2026 (10.06.2026): PIL mandamus to stop new bus stand beside Shri Ulaganadha Perumal / Trivikramasamy Temple, Thirukovilur, Kallakurichi District; prohibited-area plea under Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 unsupported beyond photographs; judicial restraint on questioning municipal planning; dismissed, no costs; connected application WMP No.22812 of 2026 closed.

What did the court decide?

The Court registered its strong disapproval for entertaining the public interest litigation, as it was driven purely by individual impression or photographs without establishing the foundational legal violations; photographs or bare assertions cannot form the basis to entertain a PIL or stall developmental work. ¶43

Viswanathan Vs The Secretary to Government — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶48

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing respondents 1 to 3 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 11.02.2026 and reminder dated 19.05.2026 to stop the proposed construction of a new bus stand adjacent to the Shri Ulaganadha Perumal Temple (Shri Trivikramasamy Temple) in Thirukovilur. +3 more

¶36

Ratio / Principle

¶43

Key takeaways

PILs cannot be reduced to platforms where citizens question municipal planning without showcasing a clear, undeniable infringement of statutory rules.ratio¶43
Barring the production of photographs, the petitioner placed no material on record to substantiate the plea that the bus stand is being constructed within the prohibited area contemplated under the Act.ratio¶43
Executing authorities and administrative experts are the best judges to decide where a bus stop should be established; courts do not sit in appeal over the logistical wisdom of administrative decisions or planning routes unless there is patent illegality or mala fides, neither of which was established here.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Public interest writ petition under Article 226 (Madras High Court; order by Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari with Justice G. Arul Murugan on the Bench) by Viswanathan seeking a mandamus to direct respondents 1 to 3 to consider his representation dated 11.02.2026 and reminder dated 19.05.2026 for stoppage of a proposed new bus stand adjacent to Shri Ulaganadha Perumal Temple (Shri Trivikramasamy Temple), Thirukovilur, Kallakurichi District, allegedly within the prohibited area under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958. The Court held that photographs or bare assertions cannot found a PIL or stall developmental work; apart from photographs the petitioner produced no material evidencing construction within the prohibited area; administrative experts are the best judges of bus-stand location and courts do not sit in appeal over logistical wisdom absent patent illegality or mala fides. Writ petition dismissed without costs; interim application closed.

¶1

W.P.No.21080 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 10.06.2026

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN

¶7

WP No.21080 of 2026 and WMP No .22812 of 2026

¶8

Viswanathan S/o.Asokan,

¶9

At No.204,Chaitanya Laurels Apartments, 81-83, C.P.Ramasamy Road, Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018.

¶10

Petitioner(s)

¶11

¶12

The Secretary to Government Tourism, Culture and Endowments Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶13

The Secretary of Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶14

The Director Directorate of Municipal Administration, No.75, Urban Administrative Building, Santhome High Road, MRC Nagar, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai–600 028.

¶15

Page 1 of 7

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.No.21080 of 2026

¶18

4. The Commissioner

¶19

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department No.119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.

¶20

The Joint Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Villupuram.

¶21

The District Collector Kallakurichi District.

¶22

The Executive officer Thirukovilur Trivikrama Swamy Devasthanam (Shri Ulaganandha Perumal Temple) Thirukovilur Municipality Kallakurichi District.

¶23

Srimath Emperumanar Jeeyar Mutt Rep. by its Jeeyar, Thiruvengada Ramanujachariyar, 26th Title, Thirukovilur, Kallakurichi District.

¶24

Respondent(s)

¶25

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus forbearing respondents 1 to 3 from proceeding with the construction of a New Bust Stand adjacent to Shri Ulagalanda Perumal Temple also known as Shiri Thiruvikrasamy Temple, Thirukoilur, Kallakurichi District based on petitioner’s representation dated 11.02.2026, followed by petitioner reminder letter dated 19.05.2026.

¶26

For Petitioner(s): Mr. B.Manimaran

¶27

For Respondent(s):Mr. Veerabathran Prasanth.M. Standing Counsel for R1, R4 and R5

¶28

_______________ Page 2 of 7_

¶29

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

¶30

W.P.No.21080 of 2026

¶31

Mr. Mohammed Fayaz Ali Government Pleader for R2, R3 and R6

¶32

ORDER

¶33

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

¶34

The present writ petition has been preferred under Article 226

¶35

of the Constitution of India in the nature of a public interest litigation seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct respondents 1 to 3 to consider his representation dated 11.02.2026

¶36

and reminder dated 19.05.2026 to stop the proposed construction of a new bus stand adjacent to the Shri Ulaganadha Perumal Temple (Shri Trivikramasamy Temple) in Thirukovilur.

¶37

The petitioner claims that the proposed construction over Survey Numbers 526 and 527 is an unnecessary expenditure of public funds, since a functional bus stand already operates just 400 meters away. It is further alleged by the petitioner that the temple is a listed heritage site, that its properties have been mismanaged or illegally alienated by the administrators in the past, and that any construction within the vicinity violates archaeological protection

¶38

_______________ Page 3 of 7_

¶39

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

¶40

W.P.No.21080 of 2026

¶41

norms under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958.

¶42

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit materials placed on record.

¶43

At the outset, this Court must register its strong disapproval for entertaining this public interest litigation, as it is driven purely by individual impression or photographs, without establishing the foundational legal violations. Photographs or bare assertions by a petitioner cannot form the basis for this Court to entertain a public interest litigation or stall developmental work. PILs cannot be reduced to platforms where citizens question municipal planning without showcasing a clear, undeniable infringement of statutory rules. Barring production of photographs, the petitioner has not placed on record any iota of material to substantiate his plea that the bus stand is being constructed within the prohibited area as contemplated under the Act.

¶44

_______________ Page 4 of 7_

¶45

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

¶46

W.P.No.21080 of 2026

¶47

It is a well-settled principle of administrative law that the executing authorities and administrative experts are the best judges to decide where a bus stop should be established. It is for the Municipal Administration and executive bodies to evaluate public utility, traffic congestion, urban growth, and accessibility. Courts do not sit in appeal over the logistical wisdom of administrative decisions or planning routes unless there is patent illegality or mala fides, neither of which has been established here.

¶48

Finding no merit in the contentions raised, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, interim application stands closed.

¶49

(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J)

¶50

10.06.2026 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No sasi

¶51

_______________ Page 5 of 7_

¶52

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

¶53

W.P.No.21080 of 2026

¶54

To:

¶55

The Secretary to Government Tourism, Culture and Endowments Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶56

The Secretary of Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶57

The Director Directorate of Municipal Administration, No.75, Urban Administrative Building, Santhome High Road, MRC Nagar, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai–600 028.

¶58