BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11.02.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY Gunasekaran ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Madurai, K.Pudur, Madurai District.

3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Peraiyur, Madurai District.

4. The Inspector of Police, T.Kallupatti Police Station, Madurai District.

5. The Sub Inspector of Police, T.Kallupatti Police Station, Madurai District. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 4^th respondent in his proceedings in No. 02/T.Kallupatti-police circle/2026 dated 28.01.2026 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to give permission and adequate police protection to conduct cock fight (without knife) on 14.03.2026 and 15.03.2026 at Kaaraikeni, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Shanmugam For Respondent : Mr.P.Thambidurai, Government Advocate (R1)

For Respondents : Mr.A.S.Abul Kalaam Azad Government Advocate (Crl.Side) (R2 to R5)

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed for Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned proceeding issued by the 4^th respondent dated 28.01.2026 and also seeking direction to the respondents to grant permission and police protection for conducting 'Cock-Fight' on 14.03.2026 and 15.03.2026 at Kaaraikeni, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side and Civil Side) appearing for the respondent police and perused the materials available on record.

3. Through the impugned order dated 28.01.2026, the respondents refused permission and further stated that if the petitioner conducts any such ‘Cock-Fight’, appropriate criminal proceedings would be initiated against the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

4. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondents submitted that the Commissioner of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services, by proceedings dated 06.01.2022, had clarified that only Jallikattu, Manjuvirattu, Erudu Vidum Vizha and Vadamadu events are permitted, and that Rekhla race, cockfighting, etc., are not permissible. In the present case, the petitioner is seeking permission to conduct a cock-fight, which does not fall under Jallikattu or the permitted events, and therefore the respondents have rejected the request.

5. This Court has already considered the very same issue in W.P.(Crl)

(MD) No.2575 of 2025, by order dated 05.01.2026, wherein the matter was dealt with in detail.

''4.The contention of the petitioner is that ‘Cock-Flight’ is one of the customary festivals in Tamil Nadu and the same is conducted during the ‘Thai Pongal’ festival. Since it is a customary practice, the petitioner seeks to continue the same.

5. Per contra, the respondents vehemently objected, stating that the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court declined permission vide order dated 21.05.2014 in W.P.(MD) No.8040 of 2014. Following the same, a learned Single Judge of this Court also declined permission vide order dated 09.10.2025 in W.P.(MD) No.27950 of 2025. However, another Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 29.04.2025 in W.P.(MD) No. 13048 of 2025, permitted the conduct of ‘Kidaa-Muttu’. Since ‘Cock-Flight’ is stated to be similar in nature, the petitioner seeks similar permission.

6. Further, another learned Single Judge of the Principal Bench at Madras, vide order dated 15.04.2025 in W.P. No.13309 of 2025, had permitted the conduct of ‘Cock-Flight’

7. Since there are inconsistent orders, the respondent police submitted that permission cannot be granted. However, the learned counsel appearing for t