T.Mutuvel, S/O.Thenaiah v. The Superintendent Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 30.06.2017

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN W.P.[MD].No.12123 of 2017 T.Mutuvel : Petitioner Vs.

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

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Alangulam Division, Alangulam Taluk, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

3.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Pappakudi Police Station, Pappakudi, Tirunelveli District.

: Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the third respondent made in his proceedings, dated Nil, and to quash the same and consequentially direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's application to give police permission and adequate police protection to the Innisai Kacheri and other programmes scheduled on 02.07.2017 and 04.07.2017, at about 08.00 PM to 12.00 PM at Arulmigu Sri Chekkadi Sudaimada Sami Temple, Pudupatti Village, Cheranmahadevi Taluk, Tirunelveli District. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Krishnan For Respondents : Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen Additional Government Pleader

O R D E R

[Order of the Court was made by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.] Heard Mr.S.Krishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen, learned Additional Government Pleader, who appears and accepts notice for the respondents. By consent, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

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

2. The petitioner has challenged an endorsement made by the third respondent on his application dated 17.06.2017, for grant of permission to conduct the cultural programme, during the temple festival. The third respondent has returned the application citing law and order problem.

3. In our considered view, the police authorities are the best persons, who would be able to assess the law and order situation in a particular area and by exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, we cannot sit in over their decision, especially, when there is no allegation of any mala fides or arbitrariness. Therefore, we are not inclined to quash the impugned endorsement made by the third respondent. Thus, while dismissing the Writ Petition, liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the second respondent by way of representation, which shall be considered in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-II) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Alangulam Division, Alangulam Taluk, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

3.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Pappakudi Police Station, Pappakudi, Tirunelveli District.

+1cc to M/S.S.Krishnan, Advocate SR.No. 63002 ORDER MADE IN W.P.[MD].No.12123 of 2017 30.06.2017 NB JM/SV MMS/SAR 1/30.06.2017/2P/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/