The main legal point established in the judgment is that the construction of the Tamilnadu Legislative Assembly's Diamond Jubilee Memorial Arch did not violate the legal provisions of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act and the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act.

R. BANUMATHI, J.

1. Whether erection of “Tamilnadu Legislative Assembly's Diamond Jubilee Memorial Arch” on Rajaji Salai – Kamarajar Salai (Beach Road) between Fort St. George and War Memorial is in violation of Doctrine of Public Trust and the provisions of Tamil Nadu Highways Act or Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act are the points falling for consideration in this Public Interest Litigation, at the instance of a Legal Practitioner.

2. Tamilnadu Legislative Assembly formed in 1952 has completed 60 years of its existence in 2012. Government of Tamilnadu have accorded permission for construction of an Arch to commemorate the Diamond Jubilee Celebrations of Tamilnadu Legislative Assembly (1952-2012) at Rajaji Salai between Fort St. George and War Memorial. The Diamond Jubilee Memorial Arch (for short “Arch”) is to be constructed at the estimated cost of Rs.1.33 crores. The Arch would be 41 feet height and 80 feet wide. Design of the Arch is stated to be inspired by the design Cues of the Fort St. George.

3. The Case of Petitioner:- Writ Petitioner who is a practising Advocate in various Courts in Chennai and also in Madras High Court has filed this Public Interest Litigation contending that construction of Arch will be an obstruction for road expansion in future and it would obstruct larger truck vehicles which comes to Chennai Port Trust to reach the Port Gate from Royapuram. According to the Petitioner, Rajaji Salai is the main arterial road which connects High Court and northern Chennai to other parts of city and the road is also used by litigants and Advocates reaching the High Court and if Rajaji Salai is to be blocked for such construction of Arch, the city will be choked and there will be no roads to reach the High Court and place like Royapuram.

4. According to the Petitioner, as per Section 26 of Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, no person including the Government is permitted to put up any permanent structure on the highway under the control of Highways Department. As per Section 26(2) of Tamil Nadu Highways Act, Highways authority has power to grant permission only to put up temporary structures like tent, pandal or other similar erection or a temporary stall or scaffolding on the road or overhanging the roads and that too for a specified period i.e. not more than one year and hence, permanent structure like Arch overhanging the road is totally impermissible and the proposed Arch cannot be allowed to be constructed by the Government. The Government while taking a decision to put up the Arch totally ignored that the highway is a passage over which members of the public are entitled to pass and repass. Alleging that the construction of Arch will be a barricade in the road expansion in future and that the decision of the Government to construct a Memorial Arch across the State highway at Rajaji Salai is against the decision of the Supreme Court in (2009) 15 SCC 351 and the provisions of Tamil Nadu Highways Act, Writ Petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the Respondents from erecting “Tamilnadu Legislative Assembly's Diamond Jubilee Memorial Arch” at Rajaji Salai.

5. Counter of Respondents:- The Government of Tamil Nadu resisted the Writ Petition primarily contending that Rajaji Salai is not a highway. Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 is not applicable to the road belonging to the Corporation of Chennai and that the Corporation of Chennai granted permission to construct the proposed Arch at Rajaji Salai between Fort St. George and War Memorial. Arch has been designed structurally and there would not be any intermediate pillar/structure in the middle of the road and therefore, there is no question of obstruction to larger vehicles. According to the Government, the construction will be carried out in such a manner that it will not have any adverse impact on vehicular movement, safety, security or of access to the surroundings and the apprehension expressed by the Writ Petitioner is unfounded.

6. The Writ Pet