S.Ponnusamy, v. The Superintendent Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11.07.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR W.P.(MD)No.14942 of 2018 and W.M.P(MD)No.13505 of 2018 S.Ponnusamy ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.
2.The Inspector of Police, Rameshwaram Town Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.
... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the rejection order passed by the second respondent, dated 07.07.2018 and quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to grant permission and protection to conduct Adalpadal program scheduled to be held on 11.07.2018 in connection "Aani Festival" in Arulmigu Sri Kannan Kovil, at Ponthampuli, Rameshwaram, Ramanathapuram District. For Petitioner :
M/s.P.Krishnaveni, For Respondents :
Mr.M.Karuppasamy, Government Advocate
O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the impugned order passed by the second respondent, dated 07.07.2018 and consequently, direct the second respondent to grant permission and protection to conduct Adal padal programme scheduled to be held on 11.07.2018 in connection with "Aani Festival" in Arulmigu Sri Kannan Kovil, at Ponthampuli, Rameshwaram, Ramanathapuram District. 2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 3.According to the petitioner, he made a representation to the second respondent to grant permission to conduct Aadal Padal programme to be held on 11.07.2018. The said representation was rejected on the ground that if the permission is granted, it will create a law and order problem and hindrance to free flow of traffic. Challenging the aforesaid order, the present writ petition has been filed.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
4.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would submit that the second respondent has considered the said representation and rejected the same on the ground that if the permission is granted, it will create a law and order problem and hindrance to free flow of traffic. Therefore, the petitioner's representation was rightly rejected by the fourth respondent. 5.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents further submitted that, if the petitioner has given a fresh representation for mentioning the alternative place, the respondent police is ready to consider the petitioner's fresh representation and pass orders.
6.The learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes that the petitioner will conduct the Aadal Padal programme in the alternative place and also agreed to give a fresh representation to the respondent to that effect.
7.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the second respondent, dated 07.07.2018 is quashed and the petitioner is directed to make a fresh representation before the Inspector of Police, Rameshwaram Town Police Station, Ramanathapuram District. If any such representation is received, the Inspector of Police, Rameshwaram Town Police Station, Ramanathapuram District shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, immediately, after providing opportunity to the parties concerned.
8. With the above observations, this writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Crl.Side) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.
2.The Inspector of Police, Rameshwaram Town Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.
+1cc to M/s.P.Krishnaveni, Advocate, SR.No.72232. W.P.(MD)No.14942 of 2018 11.07.2018 am RAM/SV/SAR 2/11.07.2018/2P/4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/