Back
2003 Supreme(Mad) 679
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA
Sri Vasavi Kannikaparameswari Devasthanam - Appellant
Versus
The Chairman & Others - Respondents
WRIT PETITION No.45015 OF 2002 AND WPMP.NO.65826 OF 2002 AND WVMP.NO.1810 OF 2002
Decided On : 22 April 2003
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the court can issue a writ of Mandamus to prevent the obstruction of access to a temple premises and to ensure the suitability of the location for the erection of infrastructure.
Headnote:
Mandamus - Temple Premises - The court allowed the writ petition, forbidding the respondents from erecting a transformer in front of the temple on Mosque Street and to remove the pillars already fixed.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a writ of Mandamus to prevent the respondents from erecting a transformer in front of the temple on Mosque Street and to remove the pillars already fixed. The respondents had erected electric poles in front of the temple premises abutting Mosque Road.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the erection of the transformer near the temple's door would obstruct access to the temple and that the initial proposal to erect the transformer at a different place had been shifted for the benefit of the respondent No.4. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petition and closed the connected miscellaneous petitions.
Issues: The issues involved the obstruction of access to the temple due to the erection of the transformer and the suitability of the location for the transformer.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on previous decisions to distinguish the present case, emphasizing that the access to the temple would be obstructed by the proposed location of the transformer and that the initial proposal had been shifted for the benefit of the respondent No.4.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and no costs were imposed. The connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
Petitioner is the Managing Trustee of Sri Vasavi Kannikaparameswari Devasthanam. The petitioner has prayed for writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents 1 to 3 from erecting transformer in front of the temple on Mosque Street, Trivellore and to remove the pillars already fixed.
2. It is stated that the respondents 1 to 3 have erected electric poles in front of the door of the temple premises abutting Mosque Road.
3. Interim stay having been granted, the petition for vacating the stay has been filed on behalf of the respondent No.4, primarily for whose benefit, the transformer is being erected.
4. Counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 has obtained instructions and also produced the relevant files and photographs. A counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3.
5. A perusal of the materials on record as well as the photographs produced would clearly indicate that electric poles have been erected adjacent to the door of the temple in Mosque Road. It is of course true that the aforesaid door is backside door of the temple and there is access to the temple from the other road on front side.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 has contended that since poles are being erected on public land belonging to the Government and not belonging to the petitioner, no objection can be raised by the petitioner. He has placed reliance upon the decisions reported in 2000 (II) CTC 537 (PHARMASIVAM AND ANOTHER v. TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, ERODE AND 2 OTHERS), 2001(4) CTC 129 (A.R.A.S. DURAISAMY NADAR v. TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, TUTICORIN) and 1999(II)CTC 614 (THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, TNEB BASIN BRIDE, POWER HOUSE, CHENNAI AND THREE OTHERS v. THANGAPRAKASWAM)
7. In 2000 (II)CTC 537, while considering the question of grant of injunction in a suit for prohibitory injunction, the matter has come to High Court in Second Appeal. In that case, the transformer is sought to be erected in front of the plaintiff’s property. While considering this aspect, this Court has observed :
“ . . . 7. The evidence of D.W.1 was also placed before me. On going by his evidence, it is clear that no damage will be caused to the plaintiff’s property and the installation of a transformer is absolutely necessary so as to maintain the voltage stability. The witness also swears that the installation of transformer is an urgent necessity of the locality and he also said that the voltage stability cannot be maintained by making necessary adjustments in the existing transformers situated near the plaint property. The lower appellate court has also considered the evidence of P.W.1. The plaintiff has not given any evidence to show how the installation of the transformer will affect his property. His only apprehension is that installation may affect injuriously in future. Merely on the basis of apprehension, a decree for injunction cannot be granted. The respondents are doing a lawful act and they are the statutory authorities. To prevent them from discharging the statutory functions, will amount to a direction against law.”
From the aforesaid decision, it is apparent that no damage was caused to the plaintiff’s property as the plaintiff had not given any evidence to show how installation of the transformer would affect his property.
8. In the present case, the materials on record, including the photographs, would amply make it clear that the transformer would be very near to the door of the temple and one has to pass beneath the transformer while going inside the temple by using the door. The decision in 2000(II)CTC 537 is, therefore, clearly distinguishable.
9. The decision reported in 1999(II)CTC 614 is also distinguishable inasmuch as, the erection was on the basis of a sanctioned scheme, which is not so in the present case.
10. The decision reported in 2001(4) CTC 129 is also distinguishable, wherein it was observed :
“ . . . On going through
