Madras High CourtWP(MD)/6434/2017dismissed

S.Kalaiselvan, v. The Chairman, (Secretary For

2017-04-11Honourable Mr Justice N. Authinathan,Honourable Mr Justice A. Selvam3 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 11.04.2017

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.AUTHINATHAN W.P(MD)No.6434 of 2017 S.Kalaiselvan .. Petitioner Vs.

1. The Chairman, (Secretary for Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Committee under the Prevention of Cruelly to Animals Act, 1960), Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

2. The District Collector, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil.

3. The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil.

4. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil.

5. The Inspector of Police, Rajkkamangalam Police Station, Kanyakumari 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, to call for the records relating to the impugned order in Roc.No.C3/3544/17 dated 18.03.2017 of the second respondent and to quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to grant permission to the petitioner's Village for conducting 'Cock Fight' at Thickkilan Vilai, South Surangudi Post, Kanyakumari District on 15.04.2017 & 16.04.2017.

For Petitioner : Mr.J.David Ganeshan 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 order dated 18.03.2017 passed by the second respondent in Roc.No.C3/3544/17 and quash the same, by way of issuing a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus.

2.Mr.K.Guru, learned Additional Government Pleader, has taken notice for the respondents.

3.It is seen from the records that the petitioner has given a representation to the second respondent for conducting cock fight. The second respondent has rejected the same by way of passing the impugned order dated 18.03.2017 and in order to quash the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

4.Considering the fact that cock fight is not recognised under law, the reason assigned by the second respondent for rejecting the representation alleged to have been given by the petitioner is proper and therefore the impugned order does not call for any interference.

5.In fine, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (C) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To