M.Pandi v. The Deputy Superintendent Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 08.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL W.P(MD) No.9931 of 2025 M.Pandi ... Petitioner vs.
1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District.
2.The Sub-Inspector of Police V.Chatrapatti Police Station, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District.
... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to grant permission to conduct "Adal Padal" cultural programme on 08.04.2025 followed by temple worship programmes on 09.04.2025 in connection with the "Arulmigu Sri Chellayee Amman Thirukovil" in the eve of "Panguni Pongal Thiruvizha" at Mangammalpatti village, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District by considering the representation of the petitioner, dated 11.03.2025.
Page No. 1 of 6
For petitioner :Mr.V.Alex Banny Hook For respondents : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl side) *****
O R D E R
This petition is filed by the petitioner to direct the respondents to grant permission to conduct "Adal Padal" cultural programme on 08.04.2025 followed by temple worship programmes on 09.04.2025 in connection with the "Arulmigu Sri Chellayee Amman Thirukovil" in the eve of "Panguni Pongal Thiruvizha" at Mangammalpatti village, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District by considering the representation of the petitioner, dated 11.03.2025.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the village people decided to celebrate "Panguni Pongal Thiruvizha" on 08.04.2025 and 09.04.2025. Therefore, they decided to conduct cultural programme of Adal Padal on 08.04.2025 and 09.04.2025. To that effect, they also approached the respondents for grant of permission on 11.03.2025, but the same has not been considered. Hence, they filed this petition. During the pendency of this petition, the Inspector of Police, V.Chatrapatti Police Station, Peraiyur Taluk, passed an order by declining Page No. 2 of 6
to grant permission.
3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl side) for the respondents would submit that they received the representation of the petitioner, dated 11.03.2025 for conducting Adal Padal Programme scheduled to be conducted on 08.04.2025 and 09.04.2025 and the same was rejected on 04.04.2025. Therefore, the petitioner has to challenge that order. Without challenging the same, now the petitioner filed this petition.
4. This Court heard both sides and perused records.
5. According to the petitioner, they sent a representation on 11.03.2025 for Adal Padal programme scheduled to be conducted on 08.04.2025 and 09.04.2025 and no order was passed. After filing of this petition, the Inspector of Police passed the order by declining to grant permission by stating that they passed the order, as if the same was passed on 04.04.2025, however, the said order has not been served to the petitioner so far. Yesterday only, they sent the same to the petitioner through Whatsapp.
Page No. 3 of 6
6. As per the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, as far as permission to conduct cultural programmes, like Adal Padal is concerned, the police have to take decision within seven days from the date of representation of the petitioner. Otherwise, on the eighth day, it is deemed to be permitted. In this case also, the petitioner sent a representation on 11.03.2025 and thereafter, no order was passed till filing of this petition. Only after mentioning before this Court for taking the petition as urgent, the respondents passed the order by putting anti-date. Therefore, after lapse of 7 days, it is deemed to be permitted. Therefore, the petitioner need not file this petition for police protection. Though the Inspector of Police, V.Chatrapatti Police Station, Peraiyur Taluk, served a copy of the order, dated 04.04.
2025 through Whatsapp to the petitioner, the same is not in accordance with law. Therefore, the same can be ignored by the petitioner, since after completion of seven days, on the eighth day itself, it is deemed to be permitted and if any order passed by the respondent police after seven days, it is not a valid order. Therefore, the Inspector of Police has no jurisdiction to pass such orders. Therefore, the petitioner can conduct the event as if the permission was granted by the respondent police.
Page No. 4 of 6
7. Hence, the respondents are directed to monitor the entire event and grant police protection in accordance with law.
8. With the above said directions and observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of.
08.04.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No apd To 1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District.
2.The Sub-Inspector of Police V.Chatrapatti Police Station, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
Page No. 5 of 6
P.DHANABAL,J apd W.P.(MD) No.9931 of 2025 08.04.2025 Page No. 6 of 6