Point of law: Conduct of ‘Jallikattu’- Rejection under promulgation of Model Code of Conduct –Permission accorded by imposing conditions - it is always open to the official respondents concerned, which may include the law and order machinery, to take appropriate action in accordance with law.

JUDGMENT :

M. Sathyanarayanan, J.

(Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.D2/0069/2021 dated 26.02.2021 and quash the same and consequently directing the 2nd respondent to grant permission and necessary protection for conducting the Jallikkattu at Sillakudi Village, Alathur Taluk, Perambalur District on 10.03.2021 or any other subsequent earlier date convenient of the respondent in the light of G.O.(D).No.80, Animal Husbandry Dairying and Fisheries (AH3) Department, dated 15.02.2021 and pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.)

1. The petitioner claims to be the President of ‘Jallikattu’ Festival Committee, Silkudi Village, Alanthur Taluk, Perambalur district and in the affidavit filed in support of this Writ Petition, would aver that in his Village, namely, Sillakudi, there exists ancient Temple, namely, Arulmigu Sri Mariamman Temple and during the Tamil Months of Thai - Maasi, temple festivals will be conducted, culminating the function of ‘Jallikattu’. It is also pointed out by the petitioner that in terms of G.O.(D).No.80, Animal Husbandry Dairying and fisheries (AH3) Department, dated 15.02.2021, the petitioner’s Village has also been included in the District Gazette and permission was also accorded to conduct ‘Jallikattu’ in any one of the days between 17.02.2021 and 14.03.2021. The petitioner, in this regard, has also submitted an application dated 29.01.2021, with an Undertaking Affidavit and also willing to comply with the provisions of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, as amended by the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 2017 and Rules framed thereunder and despite that the 2nd respondent, vide impugned communication dated 26.02.2021, has rejected the application on the ground of promulgation of Model Code of Conduct by the Election Commission of India, in view of the ensuing Assembly Election, during April 2021 and therefore, prays for interference.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the proceedings of the Collector of Thanjavur District dated February 2021 in Na.Ka.No.098/2021/E1 and would submit that in similar facts and circumstances, the application for conducting ‘Jallikattu’ by People of Nanjikkottai Village, Thanjavur District, has been accorded and the Thanjavur District Collector has also taken note of the assembly election notification dated 26.02.2021, imposed various conditions and it is also open to the 2nd respondent to impose similar conditions and accord permission.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instructions, would submit that insofar as price distribution is concerned, it would be deferred till the lifting of the Model Code of Conduct by the Election Commission of India, after conclusion of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Election and the said submission, on instructions, is placed on record.

4. Per contra, Mr.Kamalesh Kannan, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 3 would submit that in the light of the promulgation of Model Code of Conduct by the Election Commission of India and that the revenue and police officials will be deputed for election duties, it may extremely be difficult to monitor the law and order and public order situation, which may arise out of the conduct of the ‘Jallikattu’ festival and also pointed out that under the garb of price distribution, canvassing is also likely to take place on behalf of the candidate belong to the particular political party. In order to prevent the same, the 2nd respondent has rightly passed the impugned proceedings, in and by which, the permission sought for by the petitioner came to be rejected and prays for dismissal of this Writ Petition.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitio