Ramesh v. The Superintendent Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 30.06.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN Ramesh ... Petitioner Vs

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

2. The Deputy Superintendent Of Police, Samayanallur, Madurai District.

3. The Inspector of Police, Nagamalaipudukkottai Police Station, 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 pertaining to the impugned rejection order passed by the 3rd respondent Police in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.05/Se.Mu.Aa/2023, dated 27.06.2023 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 3rd Respondent Police to give permission and adequate Police Protection for conducting the Adal Padal Program to be conducted at Arulmighu Sri Badhirakaliyamman Temple on 03.07.2023 at about 06.00 PM to 10.00 PM in Keelamathur Village, Madurai South Taluk, Madurai District. 1/4

For Petitioner : Mr. S.Pandiyaraj For Respondents : Mr.B.Nambiselvan Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned rejection order passed by the 3rd respondent Police in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No. 05/Se.Mu.Aa/2023, dated 27.06.2023 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 3rd Respondent Police to give permission and adequate Police Protection for conducting the Adal Padal Program to be conducted at Arulmighu Sri Badhirakaliyamman Temple on 03.07.2023 at about 06.00 PM to 10.00 PM in Keelamathur Village, Madurai South Taluk, Madurai District.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that in the nearby village, where permission is sought by the petitioner, due to law 2/4

and order problem picketing is still there. Therefore, the third respondent has refused to grant permission and passed the impugned order, granting of permission to similar event will again create law and order issue. 4.In view of the above objection made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the petitioner has to wait for a reasonable time, so that peace will resume in the said place. On that ground, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the third respondent. 5.Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. 30.06.2023 NCS:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No PNM To

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

2. The Deputy Superintendent Of Police, Samayanallur, Madurai District.

3. The Inspector of Police, Nagamalaipudukkottai Police Station, Madurai District.

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

3/4

G.ILANGOVAN, J.

PNM ORDER IN 30.06.2023 4/4