SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Mad) 2998

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
V. SIVAGNANAM, J.
J. Muthukaluvan - Appellant
Versus
The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Madurai & Another - Respondent
W.P(MD). No. 15964 of 2022
Decided On : 21-07-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:R. Karthic Rajan, Advocate. For the Respondents:M. Sakthi Kumar, Government Advocate (crl.side).

The court's decision was influenced by a circular from the Director General of Police, which led to the setting aside of the impugned order and the direction for the police to consider a fresh representation for conducting the cultural programme at an alternative location.

Headnote:

Writ Petition - Cultural Programme Permission - The court set aside the impugned order rejecting permission for a cultural programme, citing a circular from the Director General of Police, and directed the police to consider a fresh representation for conducting the programme at an alternative location.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought permission to conduct a cultural programme in connection with a temple festival, but the police rejected the permission citing potential law and order issues due to the crowded area.

Finding of the Court:

The court set aside the impugned order and directed the police to consider a fresh representation for conducting the cultural programme at an alternative location, in line with a circular from the Director General of Police.

Issues: Rejection of permission for a cultural programme due to potential law and order issues in a crowded area.

Ratio Decidendi: The court considered a circular from the Director General of Police and set aside the impugned order, directing the police to consider a fresh representation for conducting the cultural programme at an alternative location.

Final Decision: The court directed the police to consider a fresh representation for conducting the cultural programme at an alternative location, and disposed of the writ petition with no costs.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.47/Inspr/V1 TPKS/MC/2022, dated 19.07.2022 and quash the same as illegal, consequently, directing the respondents to grant permission and necessary protection to conduct the ''Adal Padal'' Programme on 23.07.2022 at 08.00 p.m. to 10.00 p.m.in connection with ''Thiru Vizha'' of Arulmigu Muneeswarar, Nagadevathai Thirukovil, Keela Theru, Middle Lane, Thiruparankundram, Madurai.)

1. This writ petitioner filed this Writ Petition seeking for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.47/Inspr/V1 TPKS/MC/2022, dated 19.07.2022 and quash the same as illegal, consequently, directing the respondents to grant permission and necessary protection to conduct the ''Adal Padal'' Programme on 23.07.2022 at 08.00 p.m. to 10.00 p.m. in connection with ''Thiru Vizha'' of Arulmigu Muneeswarar, Nagadevathai Thirukovil, Keela Theru, Middle Lane, Thiruparankundram, Madurai.

2. Mr.M.Sakthikumar, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) takes notice for the respondents. By consent, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that temple festival, by name, Arulmigu Muneeswarar situated at Nagadevathai Thirukovil, Keela Theru, Middle Lane, Thiruparankundram, Madurai, is going to be held on 23.07.2022. Subsequent to the same, in order to conduct a cultural programme, they sought permission of the police by giving a representation dated 19.07.2022. But the second respondent has rejected the same. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed the above said relief.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that the place chosen by the petitioner is a crowded area and if the programme is permitted there will be law and order problem. Hence, he pleaded to dismiss the said petition.

5. I have considered the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (criminal side) appearing for the respondents police.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that previous year also, they are conducted the cultural programme without any law and order problem. Now, the petitioner is ready to choose any other place for conducting the cultural programme, as suggested by the police.

7. It is noted that the first respondent police without considering the circular of the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, Chennai in Rc.007301/Genl.I (1)/2019 dated 09.04.2019 passed the impugned order.

8. In view of the circular issued by the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, Chennai in Rc.007301/Genl.I (1)/2019 dated 09.04.2019, the impugned order passed by the second respondent dated 19.07.2022 is hereby set aside.

9. In view of the above, if the petitioner is ready to give a fresh representation to conduct Aadal Padal programme mentioning any other place, the first respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass suitable orders based on the above said circular.

10. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top