← Library
Madras High CourtWP/679/2016disposed of

V.Sakthi v. The District Collector

2016-01-08Honourable Mr Justice M.M.Sundresh3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 08.01.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTIC M.M. SUNDRESH W.P. No. 679 of 2016 & W.M.P. No. 499 of 2016 V. Sakthi ..Petitioner Vs.

1.

The District Collector, 2.

The Sub Collector, The Superintendent of Police, 4.

The Inspector of Police, Town Police Station, ..Respondents Prayer:

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the entire records in pursuant to the rejection order issued by the 4th respondent dated 18.12.2015 and quash the same and direct the 4th respondent to grant permission for the peaceful yathra of Sri Anjaneyar Idol in the specified root on 11.01.2016. For Petitioner ::

Mr.M. Sathish Kumar For Respondents ::

Mr.V. Subbiah, Special Govt. Pleader for R1 to R4

O R D E R

The petitioner made a representation on 17.12.2015 to the 4th respondent seeking permission to take the statue of Lord Hanuman in a procession through a specified route and also to perform "Annadhanam". However, the permission sought was rejected by the 4th respondent stating that there is likelihood

of law and order problem, in the event of such a procession being conducted; that an order passed under Section 30(2) of Tamil Nadu Police Act was in force and that the place, where the statue is proposed to be kept, though temporarily, belongs to the Municipality, for which no permission has been obtained. Challenging the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this writ petition.

2.

As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, all the three reasons stated in the impugned order, for rejecting the request of the petitioner, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. What the petitioner proposes to do is to keep the statue of Lord Hanuman, in the proposed place, for a specified period of time, which timeperiod can be regulated by the 4th respondent. Likewise, the timing of the procession and the route through which the procession is to be taken, can also be regulated by the 4th respondent. Mere likelihood of law and order problem cannot be a ground to reject the request made by the petitioner, in the absence of any material to substantiate the same. Further, the fact that an order under Section 30(2) of Tamil Nadu Police Act is in force cannot be a bar for the conduct of the procession.

At best, it can only be regulatory. Moreover, the petitioner has not been put on notice regarding the rejection of his request. Hence, for all the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order is set aside. The 4th respondent is directed to give adequate permission to the petitioner to carry on with the procession, subject to the conditions to be imposed by the 4th respondent, including with regard to the timing of the procession and the route in which the procession is to be taken. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Connected W.M.P. is closed.

nv s/d- Assistant Registrar(CCC) True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar To 1.

The District Collector, 2.

The Sub Collector,

The Superintendent of Police, 4.

The Inspector of Police, Town Police Station, + 1 cc to Mr.M.Sathish Kumar, Advocate SR 1647 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.1826 (19.05.2016) lrs(co) prk8/1 W.P. NO. 679 of 2016