Rajasekar.K v. The Superintendent Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 28.07.2022 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM K.Rajasekar

...Petitioner

Vs.

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

2.The Inspector of Police, W-1 Thirunagar Police Station(L&O) Madurai District.

...Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in his letter dated 18.07.2022 and quash the same and directing the 2nd respondent to grant permission to conduct the cultural music or Pattimandram and dance programe to be held on 13.08.2022 and 14.08.2022 as part of the Sri Veyil Ugantha Amman Urchava Thirukovil Festival within stipulated time fixed by this Honourable Court For Petitioner : Mr.K.R.Manimaran For Respondents : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar Government Advocate (crl.side) 1/5

O R D E R

This writ petitioner filed this Writ Petition seeking for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in his letter dated 18.07.2022 and quash the same and directing the 2nd respondent to grant permission to conduct the cultural music or Pattimandram and dance programe to be held on 13.08.2022 and 14.08.2022 as part of the Sri Veyil Ugantha Amman Urchava Thirukovil Festival within stipulated time fixed by this Honourable Court 2.Mr.R.Sureshkumar, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) takes notice for the respondents. By consent, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that temple festival, by name,Sri Veyil Ugantha Amman , is going to be held on 13.08.2022 and 14.08.2022. Subsequent to the same, in order to conduct a cultural programme, they sought permission of the police by giving a representation. But the second respondent police has rejected 2/5

the same. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed the above said relief.

4.The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) appearing for the respondent police would submit that the second respondent police has rightly rejected the representation of the petitioner and hence, he prays for dismissal of this writ petition.

5. I have considered the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (criminal side) appearing for the respondents police. 6.It is noted that the second respondent police without considering the circular of the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, Chennai in Rc.007301/Genl.I (1)/2019 dated 09.04.2019 passed the impugned order.

7. In view of the circular issued by the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, Chennai in Rc.007301/Genl.I (1)/2019 dated 09.04.2019, the impugned order passed by the second respondent dated 18.07.2022 is hereby set aside.

3/5

8. In view of the same, the second respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass suitable orders based on the above said circular.

9. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

28.07.2022 Index :Yes/No Internet: Yes/No aav Note: Issue order copy on 11.08.2022 To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, Madurai.

2.The Inspector of Police, W-1 Thirunagar Police Station(L&O) Madurai District.

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

4/5

V.SIVAGNANAM., J aav 28.07.2022 5/5