Madras High CourtWP(MD)/349/2018disposed of

M.Neelakandaraja v. The Superintendent Of Police

2018-01-09Honourable Mr Justice P. Rajamanickam2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 09.01.2018

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM W.P.(MD) No.349 of 2018 M.Neelakandaraja ... Petitioner -Vs1.The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

2.The Inspector of Police, Vadaku Vijayanarayanam Police Station, Vadaku Vijayanarayanam, Tirunelveli District.

... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the order dated 01.01.2018 on the file of the second respondent herein and quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to grant permission and give necessary protection to conduct the Kabadi Tournament scheduled to be held on 15.01.2018 and 16.01.2018 at North Street, Vadaku Vijayanarayanam, Tirunelveli District.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.M.MohanGandhi For Respondents : Mr.N.Shanmugaselvam Additional Government Pleader

O R D E R

This petition has been filed to direct the second respondent to grant permission and provide police protection for conducting Kabadi Tournament scheduled to be held on 15.01.2018 and 16.01.2018 at North Street, Vadaku Vijayanarayanam, Tirunelveli District. 2.Heard, Mr.S.M.Mohan Gandhi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.N.Shanmugaselvam, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that

without assigning any reason, the second respondent has rejected the petitioner's representation and hence the petitioner prays this Court to direct the second respondent to grant permission and protection for conducting Kabadi Tournament.

4.The learned Additional Government Pleader has submitted that since there was law and order problem, the request of the petitioner was rejected. However, he has submitted that the petitioner may be directed to give a fresh representation and if any such representation is given, the second respondent will consider and pass appropriate order.

5.Considering the aforesaid submissions, the impugned order, dated 01.01.2018, passed by the second respondent is set aside and the petitioner is directed to give a fresh representation to the second respondent. If any such representation is given, the second respondent is directed to consider the request of the petitioner and pass appropriate order. If there is any law and order problem, the second respondent should pass an order by citing reasons, without passing one line order. The second respondent should cite the instances so that the petitioner also will know the actual situation.

5.With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Crl.Side) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

2.The Inspector of Police, Vadaku Vijayanarayanam Police Station, Vadaku Vijayanarayanam, Tirunelveli District.

+1cc to M/S.R.SHANMUGA SUNDARAM, Advocate SR.No.41169. +1cc to Special Government Pleader in SR.No.41473. W.P.(MD) No.349 of 2018 09.01.2018 rmk SDS/SKN:RSK/SAR 3/10.01.2018/2P/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/