← Library
Madras High CourtWP(MD)/10530/2022allowed

Aravindh Kumar.M v. The Superintendent Of Police

2022-05-25Honourable Mr Justice P. Velmurugan2 pages

W.P (MD).No.10530 of 2022 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 25.05.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN W.P (MD).No.10530 of 2022 M.Aravindh Kumar .... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

2.The Inspector of Police, Kannivadi Police Station, Dindigul District.

....Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.23/Ka.Kaa.Nee/Thee.Ma/ 2022, dated 23.05.2022 and quash the same and consequently directing the respondents herein to grant permission for conducting on 02.06.2022 Aadalum Padalum at Sevenakarayanpatti, Kannivadi, Dharumathupatti post, Athoor Taluk, Dindigul District on the eve of Sri Kaliamman Sri Bagavathyamman Sri Muniyappan sami temple. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sarvagan Prabhu For Respondents : Mr.S.Manikandan Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.23/Ka.Kaa.Nee/ Thee.Ma/2022, dated 23.05.2022 and consequently directing the respondents herein to grant permission for conducting on 02.06.2022 Aadalum Padalum at Sevenakarayanpatti, Kannivadi, Dharumathupatti post, Athoor Taluk, Dindigul District on the eve of Sri Kaliamman Sri Bagavathyamman Sri Muniyappan sami temple.

2. Heard the learned counsel on either side.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1/2

W.P (MD).No.10530 of 2022

3. The petitioner has sent a representation on 23.05.2022 and the respondent police has also received the representation and passed rejection order on the same day. Since the second respondent without application of mind has passed the rejection order, the said rejection order is unwarranted.

4. The second respondent rejected the representation of the petitioner vide order dated 23.05.2022, which is obviously not a reasoned order and the reasons stated in the order is not acceptable. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside. The second respondent is directed to grant a permission with a reasonable restrictions to the petitioner to conduct cultural program. Since the second respondent passed a non-speaking order without any particulars or statistics, the same is unwarranted. Hence, the second respondent is directed to appear before this Court on 26.05.2022.

5. With the above directions, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Vacation Officer) // True Copy // 25/05/2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) sn/ias To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

2.The Inspector of Police, Kannivadi Police Station, Dindigul District.

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

+1 CC to M/s.S. SARVAGANPRABHU, Advocate ( SR-24121[F] dated 25/05/2022 ) W.P (MD).No.10530 of 2022 25.05.2022 RK(25/05/2022) 2P 5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2/2