G.Rabenson v. The Superintendent Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.03.2025 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL G.Rabenson ... Petitioner Vs

1. The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District, Nagarcoil.

2. The Inspector of Police, Eraniel Police Station, Eraniel, Neyoor Post, Kanyakumari District.

3. Rajadurai ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to prevent the 3rd respondent and their villagers are not to install any Arach, Electric Lights and Loud Speaker (Oliperukki at the time Temple Festival of Arulmighu Mutharamman Tirukovil Sudalai Madan Swamy Thirukovil Tirukovil in the petitioner Cheruppancodu Village limit.

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Sathiya Singh For Respondents : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi (R1-R2) Additional Public Prosecutor 1/5

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to prevent the 3rd respondent and their villagers are not to install any Arach, Electric Lights and Loud Speaker (Oliperukki) at the time Temple Festival of Arulmighu Mutharamman Tirukovil Sudalai Madan Swamy Thirukovil in the petitioner Cheruppancodu Village limit. 2.According to the petitioner, he is the resident of Cheruppancodu, Karankadu Post, Kalkulam Taluk and in the neighbouring village, every year during April and December, the villagers used to conduct festival of Arulmighu Mutharamman Tirukovil Sudalai Madan Swamy Thirukovil. At that time, they used to erect Arachs and install Electric Lights and Loud Speaker near the houses of the petitioner, thereby, causing disturbance to the public. Therefore, he lodged a complaint during the last year. Though CSR No.

494/2024 has been assigned for his complaint, thereafter, no action has been taken. Likewise, this year also the villagers have decided to conduct festival, thereby, the petitioner has sent a representation on 10.03.2025 and the same has not been considered. Hence this petition.

3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents would submit that no such complaint was received by the second respondent, if any complaint lodged by the petitioner is received by the second respondent, then the same will be considered in accordance with law.

4.Since the second respondent has denied the receipt of the complaint of the petitioner and the petitioner has also not produced any proof for receipt of complaint by the second respondent, the prayer of the petitioner cannot be considered. However, the petitioner is at liberty to send a fresh representation to the second respondent and if such representation is received by the second respondent, he may consider the same and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. 5.With the above said observations and directions, this petition stands disposed of.

19.03.2025 Internet :Yes Index :Yes/No NCC :Yes/No PNM To

1. The Superintendent of Police, 3/5

Kanyakumari District, Nagarcoil.

2. The Inspector of Police, Eraniel Police Station, Eraniel, Neyoor Post, Kanyakumari District.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

4/5

P.DHANABAL , J.

PNM ORDER IN 19.03.2025 5/5