Wanting to steer clear of any kind of political colour, the Madras High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation petition for naming the residential quarters established for judicial officers in Egmore and Saidapet court complexes here as ‘Bharat Ratna Dr. M.G. Ramachandran Residential Complex for Judicial Officers.’
Justices R. Subbiah and A.D. Jagadish Chandira rejected the PIL petition filed by advocate A.E. Chelliah, former Chairman-cum-Managing Director of Tamil Nadu Housing Board, after observing that “it is not in the annals of the judiciary to name any building, meant for its occupation, after the name of any prominent or political leaders.”
Stating to have headed the TNHB during MGR’s chief ministership, the petitioner claimed that the former Chief Minister had evinced keen interest in establishing residential quarters for the judicial officers way back in 1978 itself and placed reliance upon a letter reportedly written by the latter to him to substantiate the claim.
Though the Supreme Court stressed the need for construction of residential quarters for judicial officers in every State in 1992 and former Chief Minister Jayalalithaa sanctioned ₹7.33 crore in 1993 for construction of the quarters at Egmore and Saidapet, the seeds for the project were actually sown by MGR, the petitioner contended.
However, advocate E.K. Kumaran, representing the Registrar General of the High Court, stated that the petitioner’s plea was rejected by the High Court too after placing the request before the judge holding the portfolio of Chennai district. It was further submitted that the petitioner’s request could only be considered by the government.
In his submissions, Advocate-General Vijay Narayan contended that it was up to the government to take a policy decision on naming buildings and directions could not be sought for in such issues through PIL petitions. He also pointed out that the Director of Information and Public Relations had already rejected the petitioner’s plea.
After recording their submissions, the judges said: “In the present case, we find that there is no public interest involved or the petitioner has any locus standi to file the present writ petition... The petitioner ought to have challenged the letter of rejection and without challenging the same, he is estopped from filing the present writ petition in the nature of PIL.”
Writing the judgment for the Division Bench, Mr. Justice Subbiah also said: “The relief sought for naming the judicial officers residential quarters cannot be taken up by this court at the instance of the petitioner. The task of naming or re-naming of a public building cannot be subjected to judicial review as it is within the exclusive domain of the Government.”
