SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Mad) 2546

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C. SARAVANAN, J.
S. Muralidharan - Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, Chennai & Others - Respondent
W.P. No. 11970 of 2020 & W.M.P. Nos. 14702 of 2020 & 1222 of 2022
Decided On : 03-08-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:R. Jayaprakash, Advocate. For the Respondents:R1 to R3, Karthikaa Ashok, Standing Counsel, R4, M. Karthikeyan, Advocate.

The Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919, empowers the council to lease road sides and street margins, allowing the corporation to manage parking spaces and retrieve them back when required for widening purposes.

Headnote:

Parking Space - Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 - Section 223(5) - The court discussed the provisions of Section 223(5) of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919, which empowers the council to lease road sides and street margins. The court highlighted that the resolution passed by the council to allow parking near the temple was in line with the Act and did not transfer the area permanently to the temple. The court emphasized that the corporation had the authority to manage the parking space and retrieve it back when required for widening purposes.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a writ petition to prevent the conversion of a street into a parking space near a temple, citing a previous court order and the chaotic traffic situation in the area.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the resolution passed by the council to allow parking near the temple was in accordance with the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919. The court dismissed the petition, stating that the corporation had the authority to manage the parking space and retrieve it back when required for widening purposes.

Issues: Interference with the decision of the respondent Corporation, rights of the petitioner as a resident, and the authority of the Corporation under Section 223(5) of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the corporation had the authority to manage the parking space and retrieve it back when required for widening purposes, and the petitioner could not interfere with the decision of the respondent Corporation under Section 223(5) of the Act.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded. Connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to forbear the respondents from converting North Mada Street (40 Feet Road) into a parking space (18 Feet) at Vadapalani, Chennai – 600 026 by considering the petitioner's representation dated 10.03.2020.)

1. The Petitioner has filed this writ petition for a Mandamus to forbear the respondents from converting North Mada Street (40 Feet Road) into a parking space (18 Feet) at Vadapalani, Chennai – 600 026 by considering the petitioner's representation dated 10.03.2020.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the proposal for parking of vehicles on the North Mada Street, Vadapalani near Arulmighu Vadapalani Andavar Temple is contrary to the order dated 15.03.2016 of this Court in W.P.No.16530 of 2015 which reads as under:

“2. We are informed that all the concerned are taking necessary steps now to redeem the position, in view of the report. The relevant material has been placed on record in this behalf. Nothing more is even required by the petitioner. We would, however while closing this petition, monitor the aspect for some time by directing the respondents to file progress report and once we are satisfied that there is sufficient progress, this could be necessary.

3. The fee of the Commissioner was tentatively fixed with a direction to share the same between the petitioner and the Executive Officer of the Temple. Considering the work involved and the report prepared, we direct a similar amount to be paid once more – Rs.20,000/- each within 15 days, apart from the out of pocket expenses, which will also be shared equally.

4. The petition is closed with the aforesaid terms, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

5. The progress report be filed at least a week before the next date of hearing with advance copies to the learned counsel for the parties and the Court Commissioner may give suggestions in that context.”

3. Earlier an order dated 11.06.2015 was passed, wherein a report of a committee consisting of the Additional Commissioner of Police (Traffic), Office of the Commissioner of Police, Chennai and the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Traffic), Chennai was called for.

4. Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 11.06.2015, a detailed report was also filed by the officers before the Court. Thereafter, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 02.11.2015 in W.P.No.16530 of 2015 appointed an Advocate Commissioner who was called upon to give a report. The order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court dated 02.11.2015 reads as under:

“The affidavit filed by the sixth respondent leaves no manner of doubt that there was a chaotic situation prevalent. The question is whether when the traffic arrangement coming into place as stated before us by the learned Government Pleader and number of marriages being restricted to 15 per slot that there being 4 slots in a day and 10 persons permitted per family, the situation will manageable or not.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner suggests that there should be an independent verification of the ground reality. We agree with the submission and consider it appropriate to appoint a local Commissioner to visit the area with a photographer to take photographs/videos and the police to render all assistance to him. It will be for the local Commissioner to visit the site atleast on two to three occasions on an auspicious day for marriage, so that we get an idea of the situation prevalent. The issue of parking can also be looked into by the local Commissioner from the perspective of it being stated now that the car parks are available as per the learned Government Pleader.

3. Mr.A.J.Jawad, Advocate, residing at No.5/1, Jagajeevan Ram Avenue, East Coast Road, Injambakkam, Chennai is appointed as the local Commissioner and the fee of the local Commissioner is tentatively fixed at Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only) for all the visits

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top