Andisamy v. The Superintendent Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 08.03.2017

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.AUTHINATHAN W.P(MD)No.2947 of 2017 and W.M.P(MD)No.2385 of 2017 Andisamy .. Petitioner Vs.

1.The Superintendent of Police, Superintendent Office, Tuticorin District.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Deputy Superintendent Office, Maniyatchi, Tuticorin District.

3.The Inspector of Police, Ottapidaram Police Station, Ottapidaram, Tuticorin District.

.. Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records from the third respondent impugned order dated 18.02.2017, to quash the same as illegal and further directing the third respondent to give adequate police protection to conduct a Rekla Race at Ottapidaram to Cross Road, nearly about 7 Kilometers in Tuticorin District, dated on 25.02.2017 at about 06.00 a.m.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Gopalamanikandan For Respondents : Mr.K.Guru, Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

[Order of the Court was made by A.SELVAM, J.] This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to call for records relating to the impugned order dated 18.02.2017 passed by the third respondent and quash the same, by way of issuing a writ of certiorarified mandamus. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended to the effect that the third respondent even without assigning proper reason has rejected the permission for conducting Rekla Race in the place mentioned in the petition and under the said circumstances the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 3.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has contended to the effect that on 12.02.2017, a person has passed away due to attack of a bull and under the said circumstances the third respondent has rightly rejected the permission.

4.It is seen from the records that the third respondent has rejected the permission mainly on the ground as contended on the side of the respondents. The reason given by third respondent is not proper. Under the said circumstances, this Court is inclined to pass the following order.

5.In fine, this writ petition is allowed in part without costs and the order dated 18.02.2017 passed by the third respondent is quashed. The third respondent is directed to look into the representation alleged to have been given by the petitioner and dispose of the same within a period of three days. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

Sd ASST REGISTRAR ( CS I ) TRUE COPY SUB ASST REGISTRAR ( CS 2 ) smn To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Superintendent Office, Tuticorin District.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Deputy Superintendent Office, Maniyatchi, Tuticorin District.

3.The Inspector of Police, Ottapidaram Police Station, Ottapidaram, Tuticorin District.

1CC TO MR. S. GOPALAMANIKANDAN, ADVOCATE SR: 13195 KK SV MMS/SAR 2/08.03.2017 2P 5C ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No.2947 of 2017 and W.M.P(MD)No.2385 of 2017 08.03.2017 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/