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

2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 12973

HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
P.DHANABAL, J
Kottavilai St.Antonys Family – Appellant
Versus
The Superintendent of Police – Respondent
W.P.(MD)No.2776 of 2025



Advocates:
Mr.C.Genil for Petitioner, Mr. M.Sakthi Kumar No.1 and 2 Government Advocate(Crl.Side), Mr.V.Sasikumar for No.3

Police protection for religious activities may be granted based on the nature of the event and existing disputes, emphasizing law and order.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ Petition for police protection - The petitioner sought police protection for conducting religious activities at a burial ground owned by a Charitable Trust, citing threats from anti-social elements and prior disputes with local residents - The court noted the existence of a civil dispute regarding the burial ground and directed the authorities to consider the petitioner's representation in light of previous peace committee meetings - The court emphasized the need for appropriate action in accordance with law. (Paras 1, 3, 6)

(B) Police Protection - The court clarified that police protection may not be granted for family functions amidst ongoing disputes, but should be considered for significant festivals. (Paras 4, 6)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, as President of a burial ground trust, sought police protection due to disturbances caused by anti-social elements during religious gatherings, despite prior representations to the police going unaddressed. The third respondent raised objections based on ongoing civil disputes regarding the burial ground.

Findings of Court:
The court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation regarding police protection, taking into account previous peace committee meetings and the nature of the disputes.

Issues: The main issues included the appropriateness of granting police protection amidst ongoing disputes and the nature of the activities for which protection was sought.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that police protection should be considered based on the nature of the events and existing disputes, emphasizing the importance of law and order in religious gatherings.

Result: Writ Petition disposed of with directions.

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the representation dated 03.01.2025 and thereby direct the respondents 1 and 2 to grant adequate police protection to conduct the lent days mass, Good Friday mass, All-souls day mass and for other annual meetings conducted once in a year in the family burial ground situated in Rsy No. 543/8, 543/10 having old survey No. 7233A of Pallor village, Killioor Taluk, Kanyakumari District and to take appropriate action against the wrong doers.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the President of Kottavillai St.Antony's Family Kurusadi burial ground and the property belongs to the Charitable Trust. The Trust was established in the year 2020 with a registration No.BK4/27/2020. The trust property is a burial ground to an extent of 1 Acre and 3 cents. In the burial ground the family members of the petitioner was also buried. In the burial ground there are Sherine which is in dilapidated condition so a new temporary shed was constructed and periodical prayer meetings and official meeting were conducted. In the burial ground in the event of Christmas days, Good Friday, lent day mass, All souls day and for other important event of the family members and also for annual meet the members of the family will come to the burial ground and will honour their ancestors by raising candles and prayer. Now the anti social elements of the locality trespass into the burial ground and used to consume liquor and drugs and also use the place for hiding purpose. Several times the petitioner approached the second respondent police but no action was taken. On 02.11.2024 the meeting and worship conducted and at that time some anti social elements created trouble to the petitioner, therefore he approached the second respondent for police protection and thereafter sent a representation but no action was taken. On 03.01.2025 the petitioner has again sent a representation seeking police protection but the same was not considered, hence the present petition has been filed.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent would submit that there is some dispute between the petitioner and the third respondent in respect of the above said burial ground . The third respondent has no objection to conduct prayer at the same time meeting cannot be conducted in that place. Already there is a dispute in respect of S.No.543/8, Killiyur Taluk, Kanyakumari District and as per the decree and judgment passed by the District Munsif Court, Padmanabapuram in O.S.No.52 of 1959 held that christian families are entitled to 2/3rd share and Hindu Families are entitled to 1/3rd share. Therefore without getting permission from the District Collector the petitioner went to convene meeting and same was opposed by the Hindu people. Already one Kennedy filed Writ Petition before this Court in WP(MD) No.22716 of 2019 forbearing the official respondents from grating permission to the private respondents therein for conducting convention meeting or any other religious activities in S.No.543 of Paloor Village, Killiyur Taluk, Kaniyakumari District except under due process of law and the same is pending. The petitioner without any building plan from the local body constructed building for conduct of religious activities, thereby created religious disharmony among local people Already peace committee meeting was convened in respect of festival of Kallari Thirunal . The third respondent also appeared and resolved the issue to conduct Kallarai festival on 02.11.2024 for a period of one hour and except the Kallarai festival they would not seek permission for Thiruppali and religious festivals and would abide the outcome of the civil suit verdict. Further the suit in O.S.No. 31 of 2022 on the file of the Additional District Judge,Kuzhithurai is pending. Hence the third respondent objected to grant police protection.

4. The learned Government Adv

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