VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Madras High Court 2026 › High Court of Madras

J.Ponraj v. The Pricipal Secretary to Government /

DISPOSED OF
Court
High Court of Madras
Decided
18 August 2026
Bench
Hemant Chandangoudarauthor
Case no.
WP 2365/2025

Judgment

O R D E R The petitioner challenges the order dated 14.10.2024 passed by the first respondent, upholding the planning permission granted by the second respondent on 12.10.2023.

¶2The petitioner claims to be a member of the Church of South India and states that a Church is already functioning at the said premises. According to the petitioner, the fourth respondent, claiming to be the Presbyter-in-charge and Chairman of CSI St. Mathews Church, obtained permission to construct a Church in the name of the fifth respondent without proper authorisation.

¶3Admittedly, the petitioner is not a member of the fifth respondent Trust. The petitioner's grievance is that the fourth respondent, without proper authorisation, obtained building permission in the name of the fifth respondent. If Page3 of 5 that is so, it is for the fifth respondent to question the same.

¶4Learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5 submitted that the fifth respondent had issued an authorisation letter.

¶5The petitioner contends that the permission granted in favour of the fifth respondent has affected his right to worship and the smooth functioning of the Church. He also alleges that the fifth respondent has misappropriated funds belonging to the Church of South India.

¶6All these issues involve disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further, the petitioner has already filed several suits seeking permanent injunction and challenging the building permission granted in favour of the fifth respondent. The petitioner is therefore at liberty to raise all the above contentions in the pending suits.

¶7Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to raise all his contentions and pursue his remedies in the pending suits. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival claims.

¶8Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

18.08.2026 Speaking / Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No mk Page4 of 5 To

¶1The Principal Secretary to Government / The Prescribed Authority Housing and Urban Development Department Secretariat Chennai-600 009.

¶2The Member Secretary Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority Thalamuthu Natarajan Maaligai Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.

¶3The Commissioner (Zone V), Tambaram City Municipal Corporation No.1, Muthuranga Mudali Street West Tambaram, Chennai-600 045. WPoNo.o2365oofo2025 HEMANToCHANDANGOUDARoJ. mk WPoNo.o2365oofo2025

18.08.2026 Page5oofo5

Case details

Parties and counsel

Page1 of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18.08.2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR and W.M.P.No.2682 of 2025 J.Ponraj S/o.Late Joseph ..Petitioner Vs 1. The Principal Secretary to Government / The Prescribed Authority Housing and Urban Development Department Secretariat Chennai-600 009. 2. The Member Secretary Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority Thalamuthu Natarajan Maaligai Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008. 3. The Commissioner (Zone V), Tambaram City Municipal Corporation No.1, Muthuranga Mudali Street West Tambaram, Chennai-600 045. 4. Tr.Salomon Soundara Dass Presbyter-in-charge and Chairman of CSI St.Mathews Church East Tambaram No.8, IAF Road, East Tambaram Chennai-600 059. 5. Wesleyan Methodist Missionary Trust Association Church Rep. By Tr.Salomon Soundara Dass No.8, IAF Road, East Tambaram Chennai-600 059. … Respondents Page2 of 5 Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order dated 14.10.2024 made in G.O(3D) No.58 passed by the 1st respondent upholding the Planning Permission Order issued by the 2nd respondent dated 12.10.2023 vide File No.CMDA/PP/INST/S/0122/2023 and quash the same. For Petitioner: Mr.N.S.Suganthan For Respondents: Mr.R.Nandhakumar, Additional Government Pleader, for R1 Mr.Akhil Akbar Ali, for R2 Mr.P.Srinivas, Standing Counsel, for R3 Mr.D.Senthil Kumar, for R4 & R5

Source: High Court of Madras, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.