Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 66381
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
L. Victoria Gowri, J
C.Manikandan – Appellant
Versus
The District Collector – Respondent
W.P.Crl.(MD)No.4087 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: D. Malaichamy
For the Respondents: M.R. Priyanka Jothi, D. Rajaboopathy
When a request for protest permission becomes infructuous due to the passage of time, the court may grant liberty for a fresh representation, which authorities must consider diligently and with parity to similar previous permissions granted to others.
Headnote:The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash an order dated 19.07.2026 and to permit a peaceful protest, including fasting and public announcements, in front of a temple. The respondent authorities rejected the request, citing the need to secure a Tiger Reserve in accordance with previous judicial mandates. The court observed that the specific date for the requested protest had already passed, rendering the petition infructuous. The primary issue was whether the rejection of the protest permission was lawful and whether the petitioner could be granted relief. The court noted that the matter had become infructuous by efflux of time. However, it reasoned that the petitioner should be allowed to submit a fresh representation, which the authorities must consider diligently, ensuring parity with permissions previously granted to other political entities for similar demands. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. request for permission to conduct a peaceful protest and fasting. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. petition becoming infructuous due to the passage of the requested date. (Para 2 , 4) |
| 3. right to fresh representation and the requirement of parity in administrative decisions. (Para 5 , 6) |
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 3rd respondent in Na.Ka.1/26/Va.Ka.Ni/2026 dated 19.07.2026 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents permit the petitioner to peacefully protest in front of Varusanadu Kaliyamman Temple by conducting fasting on 28.07.2026 from 09.00 a.m to 05.00 p.m by issuing pamphlets and posters and to conduct public announcement through an Auto Rickshaw prior to 28.07.2026.
ORDER
Challenging the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to peacefully protest in front of Varusanadu Kaliyamman Temple by conducting fasting on 28.07.2026 from 09.00 a.m to 05.00 p.m by issuing pamphlets and posters and to conduct public announcement through an Auto Rickshaw prior to 28.07.2026, this writ petition is filed.
2. The learned Government Advocate (Civil) submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and the same has also been passed only in terms of the judgement of this Court in Cont.P(MD)NO.1124 of 2019 dated 25.03.2021 and for the purpose of securing the Srivilliputhur-Megamalai Tiger Reserve. Such an order has already been passed by this Court and the same has also been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 6395-6397 of 2025 in the case of A.John Kennedy & Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Others12026 INSC 605. Hence, if the petitioner's request is considered positively, that will cause unnecessary unrest and complications in complying with the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had made an application on 17.07.2026 seeking to conduct protest on 21.07.2026 which came to be rejected on 19.07.2026.
4. However, when the matter came up for hearing, the learned Government Advocate pointed out that the matter has become infructuous by efflux of time since the petitioner has sought for a permission to conduct protest on 21.07.2026.
5. By virtue of the said submission, the petitioner is given liberty to give a fresh representation. On such representation, the respondent police is directed to consider the same diligently in terms of the permission earlier given by the respondent police to the CPI party to conduct a similar protest for the same demands, by imposing necessary conditions.
6. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of.
