The case took a contentious turn when a private individual, R. Daniel, impleaded himself in the proceedings. Daniel claimed that he had installed the shrine as far back as 1995. He argued that over the last three decades, the shrine had become a vital "place of faith, hope, and emotional strength" for the local community.

The respondent’s counsel contended that:

The shrine had existed for 30 years without any prior complaints.
Removing it would hurt the religious sentiments of the devotees and potentially disturb communal harmony in the area.
The petitioner’s motives were "arbitrary and biased," alleging that the petitioner had no objection to similar Hindu structures (like Vinayaka shrines) in the vicinity.

Daniel further leveled serious counter-allegations against the petitioner, claiming that Sarath was using his own property for illegal activities, including operating an unlicensed food court, an illegal bar, and even selling crackers and country bombs used in funeral processions.

After examining the official records, the Court found that the shrine was indeed situated on land classified as 'Sarkar Poramboke' (Government land), specifically occupying about 8 square meters of a public street.

Justice Lakshminarayana dismissed the argument that religious sentiments should act as a shield for illegal construction. The Court noted that the nature of the superstructure—whether it is religious or irreligious—is irrelevant once it is established that it occupies a public space.

"A road or a street does not have any religious character," the Court remarked. "Irrespective of the nature of the superstructure... the Commissioner is statutorily required to remove the same after due notice."

The Bench relied on settled legal principles and previous Supreme Court mandates which clearly state that no person or group has the right to construct religious structures on public roads. The High Court reiterated that religious feelings cannot be a valid ground to resist the removal of such encroachments, as the law must apply uniformly to all citizens and structures.

The Court highlighted Section 128 of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act (and relevant Local Bodies Acts), which mandates the Municipal Commissioner to ensure that public places are kept free of obstructions.

The Court observed that the Regional Deputy Commissioner had already acted in accordance with the law by issuing a notice regarding the encroachment. Since the structure was confirmed to be on a public road, the petitioner was entitled to the relief sought. The authorities were directed to proceed with the removal of the shrine to restore the public pathway.

While the Court was firm on the issue of encroachment, it did not ignore the allegations made against the petitioner regarding the illegal use of his property for a bar or explosives trade.

However, Justice Lakshminarayana clarified that these allegations were separate from the issue of the public street encroachment. The Court gave Daniel the liberty to initiate separate legal proceedings if he believed the petitioner was violating the law through his business activities. The current petition, the Court noted, was strictly about the unauthorized shrine on public land.

The Madras High Court concluded that the Greater Chennai Corporation must fulfill its legal obligation to clear public streets. By setting a deadline (February 10, 2026) for the implementation of the order, the Court sent a clear message: public utility and the rule of law take precedence over unauthorized structures, regardless of the faith they represent.

The Court has scheduled a compliance hearing for February 11, 2026, to ensure that the Regional Deputy Commissioner has acted upon the order.

Case Title: A. Sarath v. The Commissioner and Others
Bench: Justice V. Lakshminarayana
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. B. Kaarvannan
Counsel for Respondents: Mr. E. C. Ramesh, Mr. R. Udaya Kumar