O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for records pertaining to the impugned order in Na.Ka.En.14/Ka.Thu.Ka/Mike/Kula/2022, dated 13.10.2022 on the file of the Respondent No.2 and quash the same as illegal, consequently direct the Respondents 1 to 3 to grant permission to conduct ''Pathukavali Festival'' from 5.30 p.m. to 10.00 p.m. scheduled on 11.11.2022 to 13.11.2022 within the time stipulated by this Court.

2.The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that he had sought permission to conduct the programme of Thirupalli, which is celebrated every year as a religious function. During Covid lock down, they did not perform Thirupali. During which time, religious activities were not conducted any of the religious places. He further submits that the Petitioner gave representation to the Respondents 1 to 3 seeking permission to conduct our age old “Pathukavali Festival''. The second Respondent has rejected the same by proceedings, dated 13.10.2022 stating that there will be a law and order problem. Therefore, they refused to grant permission. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner invited the attention of this Court to the proceedings of the second Respondent and also he invited the attention of this Court to the earlier order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, dated 16.08.2022 in different context regarding similar issues. He invited the attention of this Court in paragraph Nos.5 & 6 of the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P(MD)No.18554 of 2022, dated 16.08.2022 as follows:-

''5.Section 42-A of the Tamil Nadu District Police Act, 1859 which provides for the presence of police personnel in any public meeting or assembly or procession states that this requirement will not apply to any assembly or meeting of a purely religious character held in a recognized place of worship. Section 41 of the Chennai City Police Act which contains the power to regulate assemblies, meetings and processions in public places etc., in sub section 8 states that nothing in the Section shall apply to any assembly or meeting of a purely religious character held in a recognized place of worship. This provision was the subject matter of reference under Section 438 (2) of the old Cr.Pc before the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in AIR 1959 Mad 63 (C.N.Annadurai v. State). When the learned counsel appearing for the accused argued that the provision was discriminatory and violative of Article 14, the Hon'ble Division Bench held that the exemption granted to marriages, funerals and religious assemblies would constitute reasonable classification. The Hon'ble Division Bench held that religious meetings can be held without taking any permission at all.

6.Of course, the authorities cannot remain a silent spectator if there is breach of public tranquility. If threat to maintenance of law and order is imminent, then also the executive magistrate or the police are bound to intervene. So long as there is no such situation, the authorities have no role in the matter. The scope of this writ petition is confined to a festival that has been celebrated from time immemorial every year in a village. Since the writ prayer is for directing the authorities to grant permission, I hold that no such permission is required.”

3.Also he placed reliance on the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 and the Rule 5(3), which is as follows:-

''5(3)Notwithstanding any thing contained in sub-

rule (2), the State Government may subject to such terms and conditions as are necessary to reduce noise pollution, permit use of loud speakers or public address system and the like during night hours (between 10.00 p.m. to 12.00 midnight) on or during any cultural or religious festive occasion of a limited duration not exceeding fifteen days in all during a calendar year. The concerned State Government shall generally specify in advance, the number and particulars of the days on which such