Religious structures cannot legally occupy public pathways, and their removal is mandated under municipal law regardless of religious significance.

ORDER :

V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

I Heard Mr.B.Kaarvannan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.E.C.Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.R.Udaya Kumar, for Mr.S.Baskar, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent.

2. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the property situated in door No.1, Andal Avenue 1^st Street, Thiru.Vi.Ka.Nagar, Chennai 600 082. He had purchased the property on 25.11.2024 by way of a registered document in Doc.No.4187/2024. The petitioner pleads that prior to the purchase, he had physically visited the premises and noticed a raised structure adjacent to the entrance to the property. He was informed that the structure is only a temporary one and would be removed.

3. On the basis of this assurance, the petitioner proceeded to purchase the property. While carrying out repairs to his property, and also while taking steps towards the house warming function, he came to notice that, in the temporary structure which was already existing, a statue of Mother Mary had been installed. He pleaded that this structure is obstructing the main entrance of his house and also causes inconvenience to the pedestrians using the public pathway. He states that a tall pillar with an amplifier had been installed and an electric connection was being drawn illegally from the house located on the opposite side of the road for the lighting and for operating the amplifier. Shocked at this development, he made enquiries in the neighbourhood, but could not get any satisfactory response from anyone.

4. Taking note of the illegal super structure and the unauthorised drawing of the electricity connection, he approached the respondents by way of a representation on 13.09.2025. Though the representation was acknowledged, no action was initiated by the respondents. As the illegal structure had been raised on a public pavement, the petitioner is before this Court for issue of mandamus to take necessary action on the complaint that had been lodged by him on 13.09.2025 and for consequential orders.

5. When the matter came up for hearing on 19.12.2025, Ms.N.Lavanya, learned Standing Counsel, who took notice on behalf of Mr.E.C.Ramesh, for the respondents 1 and 2, stated that the Corporation officials would inspect the said area and submit a report to this Court. Taking into consideration that Christmas and New year celebrations were round the corner, I directed the inspection to take place after the celebrations are completed. I posted the matter yesterday for hearing.

6. When I took up the matter for hearing, Mr.S.Baskar brought to my attention that he had filed an application to implead one Daniel as a party to the said proceedings.

7. Mr.Daniel pleaded that he has been residing in the property at No.25, Gopalapuram 2^nd Street, Thiru.Vi.Ka.Nagar, Chennai-600 082 from the time of his birth. He pleaded that he has been guided by the Christian values of faith, service, compassion, and communal harmony. He further pleaded that, in the year 1995, he, along with few friends, had established a small shrine of Mother Velankanni. From the very inception, he has been performing prayers and religious observances with devotion and discipline. He further urged that the shrine has been in existence for nearly three decades and it has become a place of faith, hope, and emotional strength for a large number of devotees who are residing in the locality. He further pleaded that, till the petitioner came along, the shrine was never a subject matter of objection or any complaint, which according to Mr.Daniel, indicates its acceptance and importance within the community. He pleaded tha