The News Minute | November 27, 2014 | 10.30 am ISTThe High Court of Madras disposed off a curious petition filed by the Chennai Corporation on Wednesday. The Corporation which had obtained a ruling in its favour wanted the court to review the same order.A temple was built on the footpath right in front of the main entrance of the High Court of Madras in the late 80s to pray for the then Chief Minister MG Ramachandran was flown to the US for medical treatment.The Chennai corporation had decided to remove the structure as it was an encroachment and caused hindrance to the pedestrians as it was on the footpath. A petition was filed before the High Court seeking stay on the corporation’s decision. The court in December 2013 had upheld the corporation’s decision, the Times of India reported.What happened later led to the criticism of the corporation officials by the court. To remove anything that was built for the party’s founder MGR was unthinkable for the party men. AIADMK lawyers put pressure on the corporation officials to not execute their decision which the court had upheld.Succumbing to this pressure, the corporation officials, who had won the case in their favour, filed a review petition in the hope that the court may ask the temple to stay as it is. The judges came out in strong words criticizing the officials. "This is a strange, rather a unique, review petition filed by Chennai city municipal corporation after succeeding in the petition filed by an encroacher. “The Chennai corporation appears to have taken up the responsibility of filing the review petition so as to enable Kantha Srinivasan, trustee of Sri Needhi Karumariamman Temple, to retain the private temple constructed on public property.”"The public should be permitted to use the road. The roads are not meant for construction of temple, mosque or church. The corporation was fully correct in directing removal of the temple building. The authorities, instead of protecting the interests of the corporation, are now indulging in acts like filing a review petition without there being any adverse order against them,” Justice Satish K Agnihotri and Justice K K Sasidharan said.