IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE:29.3.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR WRIT PETITION NO.6186 OF 2011 AND M.P.NO.1 OF 2011 1.E.Ganesan, 2.K.Vijayaraghavan, 3.K.Rajavelu, 4.V.Karuppiah. ... Petitioners vs. 1.The Commissioner, Kanchipuram Municipality, Kanchipuram. 2.The Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Kanchipuram. ... Respondents Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, not to demolish the temple or any superstructure attached thereto namely Sri Karpaga Vinayagar Kannappa Vinayagar Thirukkoil, situated at Ekambaranathar Koil North Mada Street, Big Kanchipuram. For Petitioners : Mr.G.K.Sekar For Respondents : Mr.P.Srinivas, for R1 Mr.S.Shivashanmugam, for R2 O R D E R Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, not to demolish the temple or any superstructure attached thereto namely Sri Karpaga Vinayagar Kannappa Vinayagar Thirukkoil, situated at Ekambaranathar Koil North Mada Street, Big Kanchipuram. 2. Mr.P.Srinivas, learned counsel, appears on behalf of the first respondent. Mr.S.Shivashanmugam, learned Government Advocate, appears on behalf of the second respondent. By consent of both parties, the writ petition is taken up for disposal. 3. Petitioners claimed to be the residents of Ekambaranathar Temple North Mada Street, Kancheepuram. They claimed that they have renovated the temple, viz., Arulmigu Sri Karpaga Vinayagar, Kannappa https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Vinayagar Temple" which is situated on the said street. It is the apprehension of the petitioners that the first and the second respondents are trying to remove the temple stating that it is encroached into the road margin. In this regard, petitioners have sent a legal notice dated 15.2.2011 to the first respondent. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and the learned Government appearing for the second respondent state that as on today, there is no proceeding initiated by the first or the second respondent and there is no reason for the petitioners to rush to this Court. 5. In any event, the above temple is situated in the road margin. It is for the highways department to take appropriate action. Considering the above, the first respondent is directed to consider the legal notice dated 15.2.2011 and give a suitable reply as to whether they have any role to play in the grievance expressed by the petitioners. If not the petitioners are directed to approach the competent authority for appropriate relief in accordance with law. 6. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ts To 1.The Commissioner, Kanchipuram Municipality, Kanchipuram. 2.The Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Kanchipuram. 1 cc To Mr.G.K.Sekar, Advocate, SR.22328. 1 cc To Mr.P.Srinivas, Advocate, SR.23263. W.P.No.6186 of 2011 KGK(CO) RVL 19.04.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/