BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04.10.2024 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR W.P.(MD)No.23686 of 2024 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.20054 and 20055 of 2024 Sivasakthi Balan ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, Madurai.

2.The Inspector of Police, Thirumangalam Police Station, Madurai District. ... Respondents 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 of the second respondent in his rejection order without mentioning date and quash the same as non application of mind and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently, direct the first respondent to give permission to the fasting protection at Rajaji Statue on

04.10.2024 within the period stipulated by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Saravna Bhagavathy, For Respondents : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar, Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the second respondent in his rejection order without mentioning date and quash the same as non application of mind and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently, direct the first respondent to give permission to the fasting protection at Rajaji Statue on 04.10.2024 within the period stipulated by this Court.

2. It is seen that in the rejection order, the main reason assigned by the respondents is that the proposed place is the main place and if permission is granted for the above fasting, it will affect the traffic and the movement of the people.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that two weeks back, they have granted permission for similar fasting.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State would submit that the fasting as stated by the petitioner was conducted without any permission and in the evening, they were removed from the place.

5. It is not the case of the respondent police that they have not given any permission in that place for fasting.

6. Considering the above, the impugned order is liable to be quased and is quashed. The petitioner is directed to give representation by incorporating date, time and place to the second respondent and on such receipt, the second respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's representation and pass orders within two days from the date of receipt of representation.

7. With the above direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.

04.10.2024 NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet : Yes/ No das Note: Issue order copy on 04.10.2024.

To

1.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, Madurai.

2.The Inspector of Police, Thirumangalam Police Station, Madurai District.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

K.MURALI SHANKAR, J das Order made in W.P.(MD)No.23686 of 2024 Dated : 04.10.2024