R.Ayyarsamy v. The Superintendent Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 06.07.2016
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE S.VIMALA W.P(MD) No.11978 of 2016 R.Ayyarsamy .. Petitioner -vs1.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul.
2.The Sub Inspector of Police, Taluk Police Station, Dindigul District. ... Respondent Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in C.NO. 10/Mike/EIPS/DGL/2016 dated 24.06.2016 and quash the same and consequently directing the respondents herein to grant permission and adequate police protection for conducting the Aadalum Padalum function at Periyaponnimandurai Village Dindigul Taluk Dindigul District on the eve of Sri Kaliamman Sri Bagavathyamman Temple Festival on 14.07.2016.
For Petitioner :
Mr.D.Selvaraj For Respondent :
Mr.D.Muruganandam, Addl. Govt. Pleader
O R D E R
The writ petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in C.NO.
10/Mike/EIPS/DGL/2016 dated 24.06.2016 and quash the same and consequently directing the respondents herein to grant permission and adequate police protection for conducting the Aadalum Padalum function at Periyaponnimandurai Village Dindigul Taluk Dindigul District on the eve of Sri Kaliamman Sri Bagavathyamman Temple Festival on 14.07.2016.
2. Mr.D.Muruganandam, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice for the respondents. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the programme is being conducted by the villagers regularly in order to promote harmony during the above said festival period. He would further submit that the representation given to the second respondent was rejected vide the impugned order.
5. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent would submit that considering the law and problem prevalent in the area, the permission for conducting the programme was rejected.
6. However, the reasons alleged may not exist as of now and as the situation is liable to change, the petitioner is permitted to make a fresh representation.
7. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to make a fresh representation to the second respondent in person and on receipt of such representation, the second respondent is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders on merits and as per law immediately, as the function is stated to be scheduled on 14.07.2016, .
With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AE) /TRUE COPY/ Sub Assistant Registrar arul To:
1.The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Dindigul.
2.The Sub Inspector of Police, Taluk Police Station, Dindigul District.
3.The Additional Government Pleader, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
+1cc to MR.D.SELVARAJ, Advocate in SR.No. 35348 +1CC THE SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, IN SR.NO. 35415 JAM/12.07.2016/SK-SKN/SARI/3P-6C W.P(MD)No.11978 of 2016 06.07.2016