K.Pushpanathan v. The Deputy Superintendent

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23.12.2016

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM W.P(MD) No.24703 of 2016 K.Pushpanathan ... Petitioner -vs1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruchuli Circle, Virudhunagar District.

2.The Inspector of Police, Narikudi Police Station, Virudhunagar 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 impugned order of the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.469/MIKE/SDO/TCL/16, dated 18.12.2016 and quash the same as illegal and consequently, direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to conduct the Kabadi Match, which is scheduled to be held on 30.12.2016 at about 08.00 pm to 31.12.2016 at about 12.00 noon and to provide adequate police protection.

For Petitioner :

Mr.M.Jegadeesh Pandian For Respondent :

Mr.K.P.Krishnadoss Government Advocate

O R D E R

The writ petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order, dated 18.12.2016 passed by the 1st respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to conduct the Kabadi Match, which is scheduled to be held on 30.12.2016 at about 08.00 pm to 31.12.2016 at about 12.00 noon and to provide adequate police protection.

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.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is in-charge of Karuvakudi Kabadi Team

and they have decided to conduct Kabadi Match at Karuvakudi Village in order to make the 1st year death anniversary of V.S.Gnanavel memorial on 30.12.2016 and 31.12.2016 and for that, he approached the 2nd respondent on 15.12.2016, but he refused to receive the same and hence, he approached the 1st respondent in person and after receiving the same, the 1st respondent has rejected the request of the petitioner by the impugned order and hence, he has come forward with this petition. 4.

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) would submit that in the earlier occasions, due to communal problem, so many cases were registered against the village people and the cases are pending for investigation and if the petitioner is allowed to conduct the Kabadi Tournament, there will be a possibility of law and order problem in that area and hence, the 1st respondent has passed the impugned order, rejecting the request of the petitioner and hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the petition. 5.It is seen from the records that the petitioner has given a representation, dated 15.12.2016 to the first respondent seeking permission to conduct Kabadi Match on 30.12.2016 and 31.12.

2016 and it was considered and rejected by the first respondent stating that since the communal problem is prevailing in that area, there is a possibility of law and order problem, in the event of granting permission to conduct a Kabadi Match. 6.In view of the above circumstances, this court is of the considered view that the first respondent has rightly rejected the request of the petitioner and there is no illegality or infirmity in the order, which is impugned in this writ petition. 7.In the result, this petition is dismissed. No costs.

1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruchuli Circle, Virudhunagar District.

2.The Inspector of Police, Narikudi Police Station, Virudhunagar District.

3.The Government Advocate, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai er RL/4C/2P/MR/2.5.2017 W.P(MD)No.24703 of 2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 23.12.2016