Madras High court has criticised city's municipal corporation for filing petition to review earlier order
Madras High Court
Chennai: Pointing out that roads are not meant for construction of temple, mosque or church, the Madras high court has criticised the conduct of the city municipal corporation for filing a petition to review the court’s earlier order, relating to removal of a temple, constructed in public property, adjacent to the main entrance of the High Court building.“This is strange, rather a unique review petition filed by Chennai city municipal corporation after succeeding in the writ petition filed by an encroacher, challenging the eviction order passed by the Corporation directing the removal of a temple located in public property,” said a division bench comprising Justices Satish K. Agnihotri and K. K. Sasidharan while dismissing the review petition filed by Chennai corporation, by its Commissioner and assistant executive engineer, Zone II.
Kantha Srinivasan constructed a Sri Needhi Karumariamman temple on NSC Bose road. The temple was also known as MGR temple, because she keeps a MGR photograph inside the temple and worships him every day. On a petition from social activist, Ramaswamy, to remove the encroachment made by her, the High Court had directed the Corporation to take action in accordance with the law. The Corporation had on November 28, 2010 directed removal of the temple within 15 days. Her petition challenging the removal order was also dismissed.
The Corporation filed the present review petition on the ground that it has formulated a comprehensive policy regarding removal, relocation and regularization of unauthorized constructions of religious structures and it was notified on September 13, 2010. Eviction of religious structures should be carried out in accordance with the policy formulated by the government.
Slamming the corporation, the bench said the policy in the subject case was there even when the Corporation issued the removal notice. Therefore it cannot be said that review was necessary on account of discovery of new and important matter. There was absolutely no mistake or error apparent on the face of record to review the order.
The bench said the corporation was expected to protect the public property. The public should be permitted to use the road. “We have, in our earlier order made it clear that the corporation was fully correct in directing removal of the temple, as it would deny the public, usage of the road. The Chennai corporation commissioner and assistant executive Engineer, Zone II, instead of protecting the interest of the corporation is now indulging in acts like filing review petition without there being any adverse order against them.
The petitioners now wanted this court to rehear the matter in spite of the fact that they have succeeded in the writ petition. Public money is wasted by filing the review petition,” the bench added.
Next Story
