Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Madras High Court
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

Backiammal Alias ... vs The Commissioner

Madras High Court|02 February, 2017

JUDGMENT / ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) The petitioner claims that her late husband and she had constructed Om Sakthi Mariamman Temple at the corner of the Armenian Street and NSC Bose Road, which is outside No.58, Armenian Street, in the year 1965 with thatched shed and a permanent structure was put up in the year 1968. The temple is stated to be visited by a number of devotees. The temple is stated to be not causing any disturbance or obstruction. However, on 15.5.2008, employees from the respondent Corporation are stated to have visited the site threatening to demolish the temple. She consequently filed the present writ petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner sought to contend that in W.P.No.20192 of 2008, allegation was made about another temple at N.S.C. Bose Road in front of the High Court and Armenian Street and that temple is stated to have been since removed and the threatened action of the respondent Corporation is stated to be under a mistaken belief that the present temple was also covered by the proceedings in those writ petition.
3. We are, however, informed by the learned counsel for the Corporation that the aforesaid is not the correct position and a notice dated 3.5.2008 under Section 220 of the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act IV of 1919 was served on the petitioner. Another letter produced before us dated 8.6.2009 by the very counsel for the petitioner to the respondent Corporation refers to some other notice received by the petitioner dated 6.2.2009.
4. The fact of the matter is that the stand qua the temple on behalf of the petitioner is reflected in the reply dated 8.6.2009. It would thus be appropriate that the Corporation considers the reply sent by the petitioner and take a final view of the matter based on the said reply. We may, however, note that though in the reply there is a reference to the present writ petition, that would not be an impediment now as we are disposing of the writ petition in view of the aforesaid facts recorded.
The petition, accordingly, stands disposed of. No costs.
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Backiammal Alias ... vs The Commissioner

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
02 February, 2017