M.Pradeep Pandian v. The Superintendent Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12.03.2025 CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL and WMP(MD) Nos.3601 & 3660 of 2025 M.Pradeep Pandian ... Petitioner Vs
1. The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul.
2. The Deputy Superintendent Of Police, Dindigul Sub Division(Rural),
3. The Inspector of Police, Thadikombu Police Station,
4. The Inspector of Police, Kannivadi Police Station ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings in C.No.10/E-4 PS/2025 dated 18.02.2025 1/6
and quash the same and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to grant police permission and protection for Dharna in front of the District Collector's Office, Dindigul District.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Mayil Vagana Rajendiran For Respondents : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
O R D E R
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings in C.No.10/E-4 PS/2025, dated 18.02.2025 and consequently to direct the 3rd respondent to grant police permission and protection for Dharna in front of the District Collector's Office Dindigul District.
2. According to the petitioner, the Party members decided to conduct Dharna in front of the District Collectors Office Dindigul District on 19.02.2025. In this regard, he has sent a representation to the 3rd respondent on 14.02.2025 and the same was rejected by the 3rd respondent by citing law and order problem and it would cause hindrance to the public.
2/6
3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents would submit that they have received the representation of the petitioner and due to law and order problem and the Dharna would cause hindrance to the public to do their day-to-day affairs, they rejected the representation of the petitioner through an impugned order, dated 26.02.2025. If the petitioner undertakes to conduct the Dharna in an alternative place, then they will consider the representation of the petitioner.
4.At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner suggested an alternative place to conduct Dharna at 'Manikoondu' on 28.03.2025.
5.The respondent police cannot deny permission to conduct Dharna based on the law and order problem. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. However, it is seen that the date on which permission was sought for by the petitioner is over, there is no need for this Court to set aside the impugned order.
3/6
6. Since the respondent police is agreed to consider the representation of the petitioner, if an alternative place is suggested, it is for the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority viz., Dindigul Town North Police Station by way of filing a fresh representation for conducting Dharna at 'Manikoondu' on 28.03.2025. On such representation being filed by the petitioner, the concerned police is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders by imposing necessary conditions.
7.With the above observations, this petition stands disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 12.03.2025 Internet :Yes Index :Yes/No NCC :Yes/No Note: Issue order copy on 13.03.2025 PNM To
1. The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul.
2. The Deputy Superintendent Of Police, Dindigul Sub Division(Rural), 4/6
3. The Inspector of Police, Thadikombu Police Station,
4. The Inspector of Police, Kannivadi Police Station 5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
5/6
P.DHANABAL , J.
PNM ORDER IN and WMP(MD) Nos.3601 & 3660 of 2025 12.03.2025 6/6