Swaraat / Swaraat Editor Desk
Advocate Ramamurthy and Senior Counsel Ravi Seshadri argued on behalf of the Aayalam Kaapom organization in the case heard in the 1st Bench of Madras High Court (MHC) presided by the Honourable Chief Justice, Justice Manindra Mohan Srivastava.
The Honourable Judge hearing the organization’s Writ Petition18163 case had personally visited Durgaiamman Temple in Royapettah, Chennai and inspected it, categorically stating that it was inappropriate to construct the railway station entrance so close to the temple.The verdict was given after CMRL agreed filing an undertaking that it will be set up in front of the OSR land of the adjacent United India (UIA) complex.
Senior Counsel Mr. Ravi explained that it was wrong on the part of the single Judge in the Writ Petition 33116 filed by UIA, to reverse the earlier Order stating that the station entrance could be built near the temple on the ground that the UIA’s building should not be affected.
UIA’s Senior Counsel argued that the judges in the earlier case have ruled in a manner affecting their building without even consulting them and hence cannot be accepted. Government Advocate General P.S. Raman stated that a small station entrance measuring 400 sq. ft. only will be located in front of the UIA complex and the remaining open land will be returned to the UIA after the Metro works are completed, only a small entrance building will be there in the front 4000 sq. ft. open space having reasonable 70 feet width, the design of the entrance will be developed in consultation with the UIA architect.
Chief Justice said that as the division bench judges have ruled in the earlier case after a thorough analysis of all the factors, it is not appropriate for UIA to present the arguments backwards, Stating that development work should be carried on. He ordered that the UIA should discuss the design of the entrance with Chennai Metro Rail Limited, arrive at a proposal and submit the same to the court on the next hearing date 28th January 2026.
This Case traverses further with the underlying that places of worship should not be affected, even though it is a development project, as per the fundamental right to the devotees granted by the Constitution.