1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14.02.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN W.P.(MD)No.1393 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 R.Suresh, S/o.Ramachandran, Archagar/Trustee, Sanjeevi Anjaneya Swamy Temple, Bharathidasan Salai, Trichy. : Petitioner Vs. The Tiruchirappalli Municipal Corporation, Represented by its Commissioner, Tiruchirappalli. : Respondent Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from demolishing the Sanjeeva Anjeneya Swamy Temple located at Bharathidasan Salai, Trichy. For Petitioner : Mr.G.R.Swaminathan For Respondent : Mr.P.Srinivas ORDER The attempt made by the respondent to demolish the Sanjeeva Anjeneya Swamy Temple even before the disposal of the representation submitted by the petitioner, pursuant to the order of this Court dated 10.01.2007 in W.P.(MD)No.4386 of 2005 compelled the petitioner to approach this Court. 2. The petitioner is stated to be the trustee of Arulmighu Sanjeeva Anjeneya Swamy Temple in the district of Trichy. Since there was a threat of demolition at the instance of the respondent, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.4386 of 2005 before this Court. The said Writ Petition was disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to submit his explanation and the Corporation was directed to dispose of the matter. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted a representation on 07.07.2010. The officials of the Corporation inspected the spot on 24.01.2010. However, they have not made any attempt to dispose of the representation. The officials informed the petitioner that they would demolish the temple, which made the petitioner to file this Writ Petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, on instructions, submits that the representation submitted by the petitioner, pursuant to the order of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.4386 of 2005, would be considered on merits and appropriate orders would be passed. The learned Standing Counsel further submits that till the disposal of the matter, no coercive action would be taken by the respondent to demolish the structure. 5. Since the respondent is seized of the matter, the question of demolition of the temple during the pendency of the Writ Petition does not arise. Therefore, by recording the submission of the Corporation that appropriate orders would be passed on the representation submitted by the petitioner on 07.07.2010, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. 6. The respondent is directed to maintain status quo till the disposal of the representation submitted by the petitioner on 07.07.2010, pursuant to the order passed by this Court dated 10.01.2007 in W.P.(MD) No.4386 of 2005. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (P&A) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Commissioner, The Tiruchirappalli Municipal Corporation, Tiruchirappalli. +1cc to Mr.T.Srinivas, Advocate SR.8843 SML SR : 02.03.2011 : 2p/3c Order made in W.P.(MD)No.1393 of 2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/