V.Murugan v. The Superintndent Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20.12.2016
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM W.P(MD) No.23508 of 2016 V.Murugan ... Petitioner -vs1.The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ambasamudram Circle, Ambasamudram, Tirunelveli District.
3.The Inspector of Police, Vickramasingapuram Police Station, Vickramasingapuram, Tirunelveli District.
... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the 3rd respondent made in his proceedings in Memo, dated 18.11.2016 and quash the same and to direct the 3rd respondent to give police permission and adequate police protection to the stage orgestra programme to be held on 12.12.2016 (Monday) at about 6.00 pm to 11.00 pm in front of the Muntru Vilakku Ground at Vicramasingapuram, Ambasamudram Taluk, Tirunelveli District or any other subsequent date and competent place at the choice of the 3rd respondent office. For Petitioner :
Mr.S.Krishnan For Respondents :
Mr.S.Kumar Government Advocate
O R D E R
The writ petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to the 3rd respondent made in his proceedings, dated 18.11.2016 and quash the same and to direct the 3rd respondent to give police permission and adequate police protection to the stage orgestra programme to be held on 12.12.2016 (Monday) at about out 6.00 pm to 11.00 pm in front of the Muntru Vilakku Ground at Vicramasingapuram, Ambasamudram Taluk, Tirunelveli District. 2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
3.It is seen from the records that the 3rd respondent has passed the impugned order, 18.11.2016 stating that if the permission sought for by the petitioner is granted, it will lead to heavy traffic problem and law and problem in that place. Hence, this court is of the considered view that the 3rd respondent police, after considering the situation prevailing in that place, has rightly passed the impugned order, which is perfectly valid in law.
4.Hence, this petition is dismissed giving liberty to the petitioner to fix an appropriate place, which will not affect the general public as well as the traffic and file a petition before the 3rd respondent police seeking for permission and such petition is being filed by the petitioner, the 3rd respondent police shall consider the petition given by the petitioner and pass suitable orders, purely on merits and in accordance with law, on the same itself. No costs.
Sd/ Assistant Registrar(Records) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar.
To:
1.The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ambasamudram Circle, Ambasamudram, Tirunelveli District.
3.The Inspector of Police, Vickramasingapuram Police Station, Vickramasingapuram, Tirunelveli District.
4.The Government Advocate, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
+1CC to the Special Government Pleader, SR.No. 82332 W.P(MD)No.23508 of 2016 20.12.2016 er AM/SS2/SAR-3/11.01.2017/2P/6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/