K.Suresh v. The Superintendent Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 12.07.2024

CORAM

THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN K.Suresh ... Petitioner Vs.

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

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District.

3.The State Rep.by The Inspector of Police, Nellikuppam Police Station, Cuddalore District ... Respondents Prayer:-Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in Na.Ka.No.38/Ne.Ka.Station/2024 dated 30.06.2024 on the file of the 3rd respondent and to quash the same and consequently, direct the 3rd respondent to permit the petitioner to agitate against Mr.Srinivasan who is working the Inspector of Police at 3rd respondent on 10.07.2024 or any other earlier date as possible.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.L.Venkatesan For Respondents : Mr.S.Udayakumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side) 1/5

ORDER

Permission sought by the petitioner's association to conduct agitation in a public place been rejected by the Inspector of Police citing the reason.

2.

It appears that the petitioner's association have some grievances against the EID Parry Management, which has now turned the contention against the Inspector of Police who has denied permission for conducting agitation against EID Parry. Alleging that he is supporting the Management of EID Parry, the present Writ Petition is filed seeking Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the proceedings of the 3rd respondent who has denied permission to conduct agitation near Cuddalore-Panruti State Highways.

3.

The perusal of the impugned order indicates that the request of the petitioner to protest against registration of complaint at the instance of EID Parry Management been denied citing inconvenience to 2/5

the general public, it being a busy traffic road and Section 30(2) of District Police Act is in force. The impugned order dated 30.06.2024 apparently does not indicate any irregularity or illegality. If the petitioner wants to protest against EID Parry, he can choose some other place which will not cause disturbance to the public and when Section 30(2) of the District Police Act is not in force.

4.

With the above observation, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

12.07.2024 rpl Index: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Panruti Taluk, Cuddalore District.

3.The Inspector of Police, Nellikuppam Police Station, Cuddalore District 3/5

4/5

Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.

rpl 4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai 12.07.2024 5/5