HC dismisses PIL to name judges’ quarters after former CM MGR

TNN | Nov 1, 2017, 07:27 IST




CHENNAI: Asserting that it is not in the annals of judiciary to name any building, meant for their use, after the name of any prominent or political leaders, the Madras high court has dismissed a PIL seeking to name residential quarters of judicial officers in Egmore as 'Bharat Ratna Dr M G Ramachandran residential complex for judicial officers.'

"For maintaining a PIL, it must be shown that the government has failed to discharge its public duty or they have breached the well established procedures while discharging their public duty or there is any violation of any provisions of law or constitutional mandate in discharge of such duty. The petitioner also must show that there is violation or transgression of any law by the authorities and such violation warrants judicial interference.

In this case, we are of the firm opinion that the petitioner has not demonstrated that there is any infringement of any of his fundamental or legal right warranting our interference. Therefore, we refrain from entering into an arena, over which the state only has exclusive domain either to name or re-name any building," a division bench of Justices R Subbiah and A D Jagadish Chandira said.

According to the petitioner, senior advocate A E Chelliah, a scheme was drawn in 1978 for building residential quarters for the judicial officers in the cadre of sub judge and district judge at Egmore and Saidapet court premises. A foundation stone was also laid by the then Chief Justice of Madras high court Ramaprasad Rao, after that no tangible action was taken. But after J Jayalalithaa became the chief minister in 1993, she passed a government order sanctioning Rs 7.33 crore for the construction of the quarters.

Pointing out that several buildings are named after the departed souls who were instrumental in doing remarkable deeds, the petitioner said, "In view of the centenary birth anniversary of MGR the residential quarters should be named after him."

He further claimed that a representation made by him in this regard to the Registrar (Management) of the high court was rejected on February 22 prompting him to approach the high court.